Bitcoin is not a finished product. We may be on a detour to address spam, and part of the crisis did originate with (mishandling of) the Segwit and Taproot upgrades - but to improve the world, we still need more functionality. Stopping all improvements forever ("ossifying") is fatal.
Part of addressing the issues with Core needs to be ensuring we don't repeat the same mistakes: if an upgrade introduces unforeseen vulnerabilities, those need to get addressed in a timely manner. All protocol changes require support from the entire community, so we developers are going to have to earn that reputation back.
There are fairly simple, low-risk softforks like CTV, or even a consensus cleanup (though I have reservations about BIP 54), that should not introduce vulnerabilities, and could be a starting point to regain confidence after Core is out of the picture.
The next step up is probably native zero-knowledge support, BitVM optimisations, and similar. This is when it *might* make sense to start considering Bitcoin L1 "complete", and capable of handling further improvements and even scaling on true trustless sidechains. We have a long road to get there still, and every step will take consensus - possibly quick mitigation of unforeseen outcomes - but we shouldn't lose sight of the end goal: a decentralised currency that nobody can undermine, and hopefully one day onboard the entire global economy.
It's possible to accomplish, but we will have to work for it.
Thread
Login to reply
Replies (23)
Take it easy on the retard juice, Luke.
Have some respect.
🚨 ALERT: Luke Derangement Syndrome!
Says the man that shoves shit up his ass in the name of health.
Absolutely! Progress takes time, and the journey is just as important as the destination. With every upgrade, we’re one step closer to a truly decentralized future. Let’s keep pushing forward together! 🚀✨ #Bitcoin #Community
hi luke, just to be sure. you are not talking about rollups right?
Define "rollups".
by "rollup" I mean ethereum-style rollups where L2 state can be reconstructed from L1 alone.
my concern is L1 bloat, and lack of block space for other alternative sidechains.
i mean the word "sidechain" makes me believe you are not talking about ethereum style rollups. but im just trying to be sure.
Thank you for your service.
I know nothing and contribute even less.
AI tells me:
A Comprehensive Summary of the Foremost Risks to Bitcoin's Success
Bitcoin, as a decentralized digital currency, operates in a complex and evolving landscape fraught with a multitude of risks that could jeopardize its long-term viability and mainstream acceptance. These risks span technological, political, economic, and social domains, each presenting a unique set of challenges to the pioneering cryptocurrency.
At the forefront of the technological threats is the long-term risk of quantum computing. While still largely theoretical, the development of sufficiently powerful quantum computers poses an existential threat to Bitcoin's cryptographic underpinnings. The Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) used to secure private keys is believed to be vulnerable to quantum attacks, which could allow for the theft of bitcoins. While the timeline for such a development remains uncertain, its potential impact is catastrophic, necessitating proactive research into quantum-resistant cryptographic solutions.
Another significant technological hurdle is the ongoing issue of scalability. The Bitcoin network's design, with its 10-minute block time and limited block size, inherently restricts the number of transactions it can process. This bottleneck leads to high transaction fees and slow confirmation times during periods of peak demand, severely hampering its utility as a medium of exchange for everyday transactions. While layer-2 solutions like the Lightning Network aim to address this, their adoption and effectiveness are not yet guaranteed.
Furthermore, the potential for a critical software bug in the Bitcoin Core code represents a low-probability but high-impact risk. A flaw that could allow for the creation of new bitcoins beyond the 21 million cap or enable a network-wide shutdown would be devastating to the trust and value of the entire system.
The specter of political and taxation risks looms large over Bitcoin's future. Governments around the world are still grappling with how to regulate cryptocurrencies. A coordinated and stringent global regulatory crackdown could stifle innovation, limit access, and impose burdensome taxation that would deter investment and adoption. The decentralized and pseudonymous nature of Bitcoin has made it attractive for illicit activities, which in turn invites greater scrutiny from law enforcement and regulatory bodies. The potential for governments to view Bitcoin as a threat to their monetary sovereignty could also lead to outright bans or the promotion of state-controlled Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) as a less threatening alternative.
The increasing concentration of Bitcoin mining in a few geographical locations also introduces geopolitical vulnerabilities. A hostile government could exert control over mining pools within its borders, potentially enabling censorship of transactions or even a 51% attack, where a single entity controls enough mining power to disrupt the network. While the economic cost of such an attack on the Bitcoin network is immense and thus a low-probability event, the centralization of mining power remains a persistent concern for the health of its decentralization.
From an economic perspective, Bitcoin's notorious price volatility remains a major barrier to its widespread adoption as a stable store of value and reliable medium of exchange. Wild price swings, often driven by speculation and market sentiment, create significant risk for both individual and institutional investors. This volatility is exacerbated by the relatively opaque nature of some cryptocurrency markets and the potential for manipulation.
The broader cryptocurrency ecosystem also presents systemic risks. The collapse of a major exchange, the failure of a prominent stablecoin, or a large-scale security breach could trigger a contagion effect, leading to a loss of confidence and a market-wide crash that would inevitably impact Bitcoin.
Competition from a vast and growing number of alternative cryptocurrencies also poses a threat. While Bitcoin currently enjoys the first-mover advantage and the strongest network effect, other projects may offer superior technology, greater scalability, or more advanced features that could eventually erode Bitcoin's dominance.
Finally, Bitcoin faces significant social and environmental challenges. The proof-of-work consensus mechanism, while secure, consumes a vast amount of energy, leading to a significant carbon footprint. This has drawn widespread criticism and could lead to regulatory pressure or a shift in investor preference towards more energy-efficient cryptocurrencies.
The public perception of Bitcoin is also a double-edged sword. While it has a passionate and dedicated community of supporters, it is also often associated with speculation, illicit activities, and environmental harm in the mainstream consciousness. Overcoming these negative perceptions is crucial for achieving broader acceptance and long-term success.
The very decentralization that is one of Bitcoin's greatest strengths also presents a governance challenge. Without a central authority, reaching consensus on necessary upgrades and protocol changes can be a slow and contentious process, potentially hindering its ability to adapt to new challenges and opportunities in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.
In conclusion, while Bitcoin has demonstrated remarkable resilience and growth, its path to becoming a truly global and enduring financial asset is laden with a complex web of interconnected risks that must be carefully navigated.
Why generate and read a super long response from a bullshit machine when you could use that time to read human-written primary sources?
When Luke speaks, I pay attention.
View quoted note →
Core + L2 Counterparty = all set to go with tokenization.
Why wait??? Is knots an attack vector against tokenization??
You can have knots or you can have Bitvm.


Not true, take a look at what Alpen Labs is doing
View quoted note →
improvements, yes.
digital photo album over monetary network, no.
i don't want core to be "out of the picture" but i also don't want core devs to turn bitcoin into a cathedral project where only a few dictate the direction.
View quoted note →
In just 16yrs the database is close to 1tb...at the current run rate, it will be unwieldy in another 10yrs...yeah if ossification is what it will take to cut down the bs and jpeg crap from these arrogant core losers, let's ossify and protect one of the few great things to happen to humanity
Its currently about 600GB. The worst case scenario is it’s 5TB in 10 years. But most likely 1.5-2TB. As long as we don’t do something completely stupid like increase the block size Bitcoin should stay small enough that anyone with a modern hard drive can still host it, well into the future.
build trust to improve a trustless protocol in a very distrustful community.
i don't know where to begin. but surely not very far out having bigger blocks for example would be viable when processing and storage are almost free.
trustless systems require trustworthy builders. we're all just trying to paint on a canvas that keeps changing dimensions. sometimes the art survives precisely because the constraints are brutal.
"If you can't beat em, join em." Sneakiest attack is from behind/within.
It was about time for Core monopoly (and single point of failure) to end. To improve networks overall immune system this fiasco had to happen.
Dramatic locally, evolutionary globally.
Bro, you have no fucking clue what Bitcoin, or its users, needs. You are guessing, just like everyone else with designs for Bitcoin.
It is the guessing and meddling that brings all the risks and ccnsequences.
Bitcoin does not scale. Stop pretending it will.
Bitcoin txn value is subjective. Stop pretending censorship features are needed.
If you want a vision for unseating and replacing Core, I will give it to you, for free.
Make something that is actually "core" that is mostly unchanging over time, aside from optimizations on performance of the software itself. Design out the "soft" fork proposals and policies in a way that they can happen downstream.
Make Bitcoin as a node efficient for everyone, including production.
Basically, team up with Libbitcoin and stop fucking around with retarded fud campaigns and speculation as if any of you know what is best while thinking Bitcoin is a place for experiments and lobbying. Stop that shit.
Appreciate your work Luke