Lopp On Ossification \ stacker news ~bitcoin

Lopp On Ossification blog.lopp.net/on-ossification/

1014 sats \ 18 comments \ @k00b 3 Nov bitcoin

if the number of economically relevant nodes is reduced due to centralization, and most Bitcoin users are priced out of self custody, we should expect that the "governance" of the protocol will become more centralized and fragile.

43 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 3 Nov

economically relevant node

From an economic standpoint, what does this mean? biggest Bitcoin holders? Could it be that people will align themselves with the largest entities rather than focusing on the hash rate? ... BRbitcoin ?

33 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 3 Nov

People accepting bitcoin for payments, typically merchants.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 3 Nov

Could lopp be referring to lucrative mining operations?

109 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 3 Nov

I don't think so. This is a very common phrase used to describe where consensus decisions matter. Regardless of what miners want, your bitcoin fork coin is worthless if no one is willing to accept it in exchange for goods, services, and more commonly these days, fiat.

This is why bitcoin only scaling in a custodial manner is dangerous. If it only scales in a custodial manner, the future of the protocol will be decided by custodians, bitcoin banks.

It's also why bitcoiners who don't run nodes are slowly eroding their savings, their opportunity to participate in consensus that might affect their savings.

260 sats \ 4 replies \ @Aardvark 3 Nov

When I read article's like these, it makes me extremely comforted to know that I have very little to do with big picture decisions regarding Bitcoin.

Balancing Bitcoins ability to not be tampered with, along side the need for flexibility seems daunting, and I defiantly know enough to know I'm not the guy for that particular job.

219 sats \ 3 replies \ @OT 4 Nov

There might come a time where we need to make a decision. Taking a side of a fork.

You're right as in there's so much to take in just to feel confident enough to have an opinion. I think we just need to keep learning, listen to different opinions on the matter and back whichever argument is the strongest.

230 sats \ 0 replies \ @Aardvark 4 Nov

Yea, I'm doing my best to learn. I thought it had a pretty good grasp on bitcoin until I joined SN. I realize that I have quite a ways to go. Luckily, I do enjoy learning, so I'll just keep reading articles like these, and when I have questions, I just do a search, or ask someone.

19 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 22h

The nice thing about forks is that you start with both options and can wait as long as you want to see how it plays out before committing to one or the other, or just keep both indefinitely.

13 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 22h

Yes.

You might lean one way or another, but it really takes balls to go 100% in one direction. Not even Roger Ver could do that.

If you are inclined towards a particular side you can start slow. Swap 5-10% of your stack to start with.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @teemupleb 3 Nov

Slow and steady

33 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 3 Nov

A word of warning, as I see conflict on the horizon. Consider the incentives around why one would want to improve the Bitcoin protocol. The only reason you'd care about doing so is if you are a direct user of the protocol. In other words, protocol improvements are only interesting to those who self custody. If you use a trusted third party to store your funds, you don't care how they make use of the protocol.

I agree with this part of the article. Who cares about protocol, the number of nodes or centralization if they leave their belongings laying around? Only if you want to hodl your own belongings would you care about all these details. It seems to me that even large hedge funds are leaving their belongings laying around on the platforms, lately. Personally, I want my BTC in my own sweaty hands!!!!

52 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 3 Nov

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rsync25 3 Nov

Ossification is the way in some point on Bitcoin

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @Satosora 3 Nov

The only problem I am worried about is that if the blockchain forks too many times. Then we would have endless supplies of different bitcoin. It would be very hard to keep the trust of the community if it does this. The "dont fix it if it aint broke" mentality is a good one, so far.

103 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 3 Nov

His response:

No one is pushing for hasty changes, nor can anyone make a serious argument that Bitcoin will "break" without a given feature. But what we can say is that the nature of how bitcoin is used will change. It has already changed significantly over the past 15 years.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 3 Nov

I realize, but the guard eventually changes. Will they have the same mindset as the previous guards?

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @ChrisS 3 Nov

In an ideal scenario the upgrades would be done without forking the blockchain like was done with segwit and taproot.