I would like to better understand the Bitcoin Core team’s stance on the principles and evolution of Bitcoin, particularly in relation to Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision as outlined in “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.”
From my understanding, the Core team places a high priority on maintaining Bitcoin’s security, ensuring that any changes align with the ethos of “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” There also appears to be a cautious approach to implementing features that could alter Bitcoin’s incentive mechanisms or jeopardize its core integrity. I am also aware of the broad opinions regarding the introduction of smart contracts and other utilities on Bitcoin.
What I am curious about is the team’s perspective on scaling Bitcoin. Is the general opposition to scaling efforts primarily focused on altering Bitcoin itself or impacting its core incentive structures? Or is it more about preserving the fundamental logic and strengths of Bitcoin as we know it today?
For example, if there were a solution that introduced what we might call a Bardo Mitosis Layer for Bitcoin, enabling it to function more as a peer-to-peer cash system—achieving instant finality, censorship resistance, unlimited TPS scaling to demand, and fully trustless operation—would such a solution be supported?
To clarify, this hypothetical solution would not require changes to Bitcoin’s current protocol, nor would it request a BIP, alter Bitcoin’s existing security guarantees, or affect Bitcoin’s incentive mechanisms in any way. It would introduce no additional trust assumptions, no committees, federations, or intermediaries. Instead, it could utilize mechanisms like Hashed Time-Locked Contracts (HTLCs) in a novel way, operating independently at the client level. This approach would remain entirely neutral to Bitcoin’s current transactional structure, ensuring it does not interfere with or modify existing processes.
Such a solution would allow users to seamlessly move between Bitcoin as a store of value and this new layer as a digital cash counterpart, inheriting Bitcoin’s security and censorship resistance. I’ve never heard a clear answer to this question posed in this way: would this type of ideal system, rigorously audited and aligned with Bitcoin’s principles, ever be acceptable to the Core team? Or, to put it bluntly, is such an approach simply never acceptable regardless of its merit?
