Why Bitcoin Is Out of Control And Cannot Be Changed
Resilience in Bitcoin isn't only limited to fending off assaults; it's also defied any attempts to change or modify its features. Most doubters have not yet grasped the full ramifications of this statement. To put it another way, the currency of Bitcoin is like the world's most decentralized central bank. It would be the world's most sovereign nation-state if it were to be compared to one.
Sovereignty in Bitcoin comes from the fact that no one knows how the consensus rules work, and hence no one can change them. Nothing controls Bitcoin, and the only options for users are to use it or not use it. This is not an exaggeration. Here are some reasons why Bitcoin is out of control and cannot be changed.
Rather than a property of the Bitcoin software, which anybody with coding abilities may alter, this immutability has its roots in the currency and network economy, and is due to the difficulty in getting all members to agree on the same software updates. Bitcoin is immutable. Initially, Satoshi Nakamoto collaborated with Hal Finney and other programmers to provide open-source software that lets anybody to operate a node that connects to the Bitcoin network.
Anybody may download and use the program in any way he or she chooses; he or she can even modify it. Because of this, Bitcoin implementations now have a level playing field for everyone to compete on, and anybody may make contributions to the software and offer it to consumers for acceptance.
COPYRIGHT_WI: Published on https://washingtonindependent.com/ebv/bitcoin-is-out-of-control/ by Stefano Mclaughlin on 2022-03-11T07:35:48.914Z
As a result, despite their expertise, Bitcoin developers have no influence over the cryptocurrency, and their role is limited to providing node operators with software that node operators choose to use. But Bitcoin isn't only a problem for engineers. Even with all of their computing power, Bitcoin's miners are unable to govern the currency. The majority of Bitcoin nodes will reject incorrect blocks no matter how much hashing power is used to process them. This means that any effort to modify the rules of the network would be disregarded by the network members who control the nodes, resulting in miners spending their resources solving proof-of-work issues for no reward.
Only blocks containing valid transactions, as defined by the current consensus rules, may be considered mined by a miner to be part of the Bitcoin network. A tempting conclusion is that node operators are in charge of Bitcoin. This is accurate on an aggregate level. Only node operators are able to pick which network rules they will adhere to, as well as the validity or invalidity of any given transaction. Because transactions will be denied if nodes impose consensus rules that are incompatible with the consensus of the network, nodes have a limited number of consensus rules to choose from. Maintaining network consensus and ensuring that all nodes adhere to these consensus rules is in everyone's interest. Nodes are unable to compel other nodes to modify their code, which produces a strong collective tendency to stick with the present consensus rules.
Finally, if Bitcoin engineers want their code approved, they must follow consensus norms. To be paid for their efforts, miners must follow the network consensus rules. Members of the network have a strong incentive to follow the consensus rules to guarantee network transaction clearing. They will likely squander resources if they deviate from consensus guidelines. So long as the network treats its members positively, more members are likely to appear.
Bitcoin's consensus parameters are hence sovereign. Bitcoin will exist if it meets these characteristics and standards. Changing Bitcoin's money supply schedule, or other crucial economic characteristics, is difficult because to this strong status quo tendency. Bitcoin is only called hard money due to its steady equilibrium. If Bitcoin deviates from these consensus norms, its value as hard money is severely harmed.
However, even significantly simpler efforts to change some of the technical parameters of the code have so far failed. The network's dispersed design necessitates numerous different and hostile parties agreeing to changes whose consequences they do not fully comprehend, while the status quo stays secure and predictable.