As I defined in a Take two weeks in the past, I feel the risk (or promise, relying in your perspective) of protocol ossification is considerably exaggerated, no less than at this time limit.
Sure, the speed of sentimental forks has slowed down considerably over time, the final one having been Taproot in 2021. However it appears this has extra to do with an absence of curiosity within the potential upgrades that’ve been proposed since then, slightly than it being as a result of lack of a great course of for deploying protocol upgrades. (Though that’s not precisely a solved downside both.)
Bitcoin Core builders are typically funded on a no-strings-attached foundation or outright volunteers, that means they’re not required to work on any particular a part of the codebase. As such, their time and power will likely be devoted to no matter they discover most fascinating or essential to work on. To date, that hasn’t actually been any of the gentle fork proposals: the assorted covenant-style opcodes aren’t unequivocally perceived to supply the kind of groundbreaking use circumstances that deserve prioritization, and whereas Drivechains sound nice in concept, their main draw back continues to be that miners can in the end steal cash from them.
However even when Bitcoin Core builders aren’t , that doesn’t imply it’s inconceivable to improve Bitcoin. For higher or worse, anybody with the precise skillset (admittedly not a really low bar) can all the time deploy a gentle fork by way of an alternate consumer, at the same time as a person activated gentle fork (UASF). But, regardless of some rumblings sometimes, nobody has accomplished this but.
I think that is no less than partly as a result of the proponents of those gentle forks aren’t satisfied a UASF would really achieve success. And if a UASF wouldn’t achieve success, possibly the improve is just not value doing within the first place…
This text is a Take. Opinions expressed are fully the creator’s and don’t essentially replicate these of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Journal.