The False Dichotomy: Soft Forks vs. Innovation
----------------------------------------------
A common argument in the altcoin community is that Bitcoin isn't innovating, especially compared to newer, "advanced" altcoins. I've debunked this fiat argument in the past, as it equates bribed rent-seekers with entrepreneurs under the label of "developers." These arguments come from non-technical midwits that spew altcoin propaganda and have no interest in providing value.
Unfortunately, this argument has a particularly obnoxious form within Bitcoin where the so-called "moderates" argue that Bitcoin needs to implement more soft forks to continue innovating or progressing or gaining adoption. This argument is flawed for several reasons.
First, it's incorrect to say Bitcoin isn't innovating. Numerous developers are continually working on Bitcoin, not just in Core, but in the many projects building on top of it. Innovation doesn't just mean changes at the protocol level; it also happens in second layers. Innovation is happening in a permissionlessly.
Second, equating soft forks with innovation is not understanding the long-term consequences. Soft forks are permanent changes to the protocol, and implementing them doesn't necessarily make Bitcoin more innovative or better. In fact, rushing to add new features can introduce security vulnerabilities, a problem often seen in many altcoins. Worse, if the soft fork is a complete dud, we're stuck with it. Reversing a soft fork requires a hard fork. We're essentially stuck with these soft-fork changes forever so we'd better be careful about the changes we let in.
Third, there's a misconception that a lack of soft forks indicates stagnation. This view ignores Bitcoin's biggest strength: its decentralization. Because Bitcoin is not controlled by a single entity, it doesn't have a traditional roadmap or deadlines. This decentralization enables a more organic and safer form of innovation, primarily occurring in layers above the Bitcoin protocol.
Innovation in Bitcoin is not solely defined by the number or frequency of soft forks. The argument that Bitcoin is lagging because it isn't continually implementing soft forks misrepresents how genuine, sustainable innovation occurs. Such misunderstandings comes from a fiat, centralized mindset and the less credence we give to this assumption, the better off we'll be.
jimmysong /
npub10v…psp42
2023-09-01 12:37:52
Author Public Key
npub10vlhsqm4qar0g42p8g3plqyktmktd8hnprew45w638xzezgja95qapsp42Published at
2023-09-01 12:37:52Event JSON
{
"id": "36e59c0f903bfd9b2e9aee26229987fc83196ad8542d5f4b5af79782ef9685d7",
"pubkey": "7b3f7803750746f455413a221f80965eecb69ef308f2ead1da89cc2c8912e968",
"created_at": 1693571872,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "The False Dichotomy: Soft Forks vs. Innovation\n----------------------------------------------\n\nA common argument in the altcoin community is that Bitcoin isn't innovating, especially compared to newer, \"advanced\" altcoins. I've debunked this fiat argument in the past, as it equates bribed rent-seekers with entrepreneurs under the label of \"developers.\" These arguments come from non-technical midwits that spew altcoin propaganda and have no interest in providing value. \n\nUnfortunately, this argument has a particularly obnoxious form within Bitcoin where the so-called \"moderates\" argue that Bitcoin needs to implement more soft forks to continue innovating or progressing or gaining adoption. This argument is flawed for several reasons.\n\nFirst, it's incorrect to say Bitcoin isn't innovating. Numerous developers are continually working on Bitcoin, not just in Core, but in the many projects building on top of it. Innovation doesn't just mean changes at the protocol level; it also happens in second layers. Innovation is happening in a permissionlessly.\n\nSecond, equating soft forks with innovation is not understanding the long-term consequences. Soft forks are permanent changes to the protocol, and implementing them doesn't necessarily make Bitcoin more innovative or better. In fact, rushing to add new features can introduce security vulnerabilities, a problem often seen in many altcoins. Worse, if the soft fork is a complete dud, we're stuck with it. Reversing a soft fork requires a hard fork. We're essentially stuck with these soft-fork changes forever so we'd better be careful about the changes we let in.\n\nThird, there's a misconception that a lack of soft forks indicates stagnation. This view ignores Bitcoin's biggest strength: its decentralization. Because Bitcoin is not controlled by a single entity, it doesn't have a traditional roadmap or deadlines. This decentralization enables a more organic and safer form of innovation, primarily occurring in layers above the Bitcoin protocol.\n\nInnovation in Bitcoin is not solely defined by the number or frequency of soft forks. The argument that Bitcoin is lagging because it isn't continually implementing soft forks misrepresents how genuine, sustainable innovation occurs. Such misunderstandings comes from a fiat, centralized mindset and the less credence we give to this assumption, the better off we'll be.",
"sig": "c587c23f8ce841c380092535c053b9bf354603ea010b3ecaad20a0cfd09cb212ba461cc690b07c906e06f80ad85fc5d43eaceaa4496122b1887d71270cdca7c7"
}