If he means base layer, then no. If he means L2 then yes. Can fuck around and find out on L2.
He is very clear. It needs to be at the protocol level.
Ship has sailed to be making sweeping changes to the base layer. People are storing their life savings in this now. L2 of gfy. Satoshi surely considered this already and decided the tradeoffs weren't worth it.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I don't consider Satoshi a god. This isn't just his protocol.
Never going to happen. This is hard fork territory, nobody wants to fork the King.
It appears that Ed doesn’t realize that is hard-fork territory (soft at best) and that developers don’t control Bitcoin.
Why not have privacy on the base layer?
Cause someone could sneak in an inflation bug?
How?
Should ask state level actors. Not my business. But transparency at the base is a pain for the corrupted.
> But transparency at the base is a pain for the corrupted. What do you mean?
Fiat is the opposite
Bitcoin has a 15 year record of running as it is. You change the code this much, you start over from zero.
You know what else has a record of being as it is? Government.
Saying something is already in a certain way means that nothing ever improves. If there's an improvement to be had, there's a change to be made.
Change introduces risk
And such changes to fatal outcomes. A sound base keeps the house stable in case of disasters.
Because you can trustlessly atomic swap for Monero and back. Get off your maxi horse and use Monero if you need base layer privacy. Nobody is saying. Sell all your Bitcoin for Monero. Reasonable people say. Sell 1% and hedge your privacy risk and have fungible money ready to spend.