@ Dug

“Perhaps a man really dies when his brain stops, when he loses the power to take in a new idea” ([Orwell in “Coming up for Air”, 1939](https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200031h.html))  While George Bowler enjoyed visiting a retired schoolmaster (Porteous), having had some time to reflect on his own life realised that if the old professor only ever delivered the same monologues, there really wasn’t any point in going to visit him, other than for a late-night glass of whisky and soda. The same point is also raised with bitcoin, if it is too resistant to change, uses too much electricity or takes too long to process transactions, it is a dinosaur, a relic that demonstrated digital scarcity was possible, but overtime could become outdated. While at the start of anyone’s journey down the bitcoin rabbit hole, these appear valid points to justify the newest, shiniest protocol. However, once you realise that the founding team of your beloved coin, or still worse “token”, assigned the majority of coins to themselves, you will hopefully return, cap in hand, to the mothership.  I admit, I went on that very same journey, but looking back, while some purchases were motivated by more than 5 minutes of YouTube based research, as my knowledge matured, bitcoin gradually subsumed my portfolio (well that and the [Canadian Truckers Protests](https://www.foxnews.com/world/canadian-style-trucker-protests-spread-world)). However, it was not until one of the reviewers of my first academic paper on bitcoin asked the question “*why are you only focusing on bitcoin*?”, that I really began to formulate my own answer. This early version of the paper was rejected from the conference so there was no immediate need to respond to this point, but as an academic, compared to maybe an enthusiastic keyboard warrior, taking offence to such a *no coiner* comment, I should be able to answer this question. The 4 point, 766-word response that resulted, then answered the questions of both why there is only one digital asset worth researching and for me, only one digital asset worth holding, bitcoin. Subsequently, further reviewer comments and the excessive length of the paper ultimately resulted in this section coming to rest on the cutting room floor, but what I learnt from this stayed with me. From this point, I no longer needed to trust other’s logic for why they are bitcoin only, but from a logical argument, I felt like I had verified why I had to be bitcoin only.  At the foundation of this was bitcoin’s resistance to change. Within broader, organisational development literature, this is frequently viewed as a negative, preventing organisations from adapting to make use of new information. However, for bitcoin, specifically in relation to its ability to act as a store of value, unless it resists changes, its store of value characteristics could be affected (such as requests for “tail emissions” or “changes to the hard cap”). A similar argument was then raised in terms of using too much energy due to the proof-of-work algorithm, [Ethereum now uses 99.95% less electricity](https://www.home.saxo/content/articles/cryptocurrencies/one-year-later---how-proof-of-stake-has-changed-ethereum-21092023), but what did this change do to the Ethereum mining industry? If there was the slightest risk that one day all the publicly and privately owned miners could be put out of business due to a change in consensus algorithm, and being left with much less useful equipment, miners would need to consider this before investing in the industry. While not technically “application specific”, due to their ability to provide verifiable randomness to web applications, ([thanks Bob](https://twitter.com/boomer_btc)), rational miners would likely look elsewhere to deploy their resources. Developments within the broad mining community interestingly reflect such business and regulatory risks, with some bitcoin miners diversifying into [Artificial Intelligence service provision](https://www.forbes.com/sites/colinharper/2024/05/31/revenue-from-ai-could-be-a-game-changer-for-bitcoin-miners--but-can-they-make-it-work/). Although this may be viewed a prudent risk management, it shows that public miners’ focus is unsurprisingly on regulatory compliance and revenue generation, compared to focusing wholly on the Bitcoin Network. As a result, if the risk of a change in consensus algorithm increased, these miners would be well placed to refocus their efforts elsewhere. For these reasons, bitcoin’s resistance to change can be viewed as critical to be able to have confidence when holding it for long periods of time.  While I was very pleased with myself, it was not until a flippant tweet involving [CalleBtc](https://twitter.com/callebtc), that I was put back in place, *bitcoin has not already won*. Bitcoin’s resistance to change and so, tendency for ossification (the process of bone formation or opposed to change), is important in terms of certain attributes (hard cap and proof of work), but potentially less essential in terms of other parts of the protocol. For example, SHA256 is a great proof-of-work consensus algorithm for the moment, but what happens if quantum computers break the algorithm (actually a relatively small risk, when compared to the cracking of nuclear launch codes)? Alternatively, what happens if there is a confluence of events and transaction attributes, enabled by a previous soft-fork that prevent blocks being added to the proof-of-work chain? In either situation, it will be both necessary for the bitcoin community to cooperate and reach consensus on an upgrade quickly, that may require a soft or hard-fork, in order for bitcoin to remain operational and secure. This was clearly articulated by Vijay Boyapati:  “I would say I’m an ossification maximalist….. the only situation which I think bitcoin should change is under gravest extreme and that is when there is a critical bug or something that breaks bitcoin… say SHA256 is broken ” ([Vijay Boyapati, 2023)](https://swansignalpodcast.com/episodes/the-state-of-the-bitcoin-bull-market-with-vijay-boyapati-brady-swenson-ep-151)  As a bitcoin user, to believe that if you are able to receive, securely store and send bitcoin, it has sufficient functionality, there may be a tendency to think there is limited value in contributing to bitcoin developers, bitcoin already does what you need it to do. While bitcoin developers work tirelessly reviewing the code to identify bugs and clear up the code, there is a risk that developers may have ulterior motives, such as getting a piece of their code uploaded to mainnet or actively blocking particular proposals ([thank you GrassFedBitcoin](https://open.spotify.com/episode/6tMTAXUJca21JhWd6eMlpx?si=74ac84961d714d5a)). While extensive review processes aim to prevent there being any negative outcomes of malicious or ego-centric upgrades, the more resources directed to bitcoin developers mean the more time and effort that can be given to checking the code prior to upgrades going live. However, extra resources alone may not be sufficient, *the devil makes work for idle hands*. If all developers do is check, recheck and test the work of others, in my view, this creates at least 2 problems. Number 1; this could become a touch monotonous over time, if becoming a bitcoin developer primarily involves auditing and quality assurance, the best and brightest minds may go elsewhere. Number 2; if bitcoin developers are only refining what is already there, who is developing the skills, capabilities, competence and craft to write the code that overcomes the quantum computing threat (who will be the next [Shaolin Fry](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zsk45/i_am_shaolinfry_author_of_the_recent_user/?rdt=59545))?  This reminded me of some work by [Dorothy Leonard-Barton](https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=72), who provided fascinating counter arguments to the earlier, and highly influential work of [Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad](https://hbr.org/1994/07/competing-for-the-future). These three authors emphasised the need for businesses to develop core competences in order to build a long-term competitive advantage. However, Leonard-Barton suggested that unless companies balanced their learning and development activities between refining, variation reducing forms of improvement and more exploratory, innovative development activities, a firm could develop what they termed *core-rigidities*. Rather than providing firms with a sustainable competitive advantage, they trapped firms in path dependencies, where they were only able to develop better versions of products that customers no longer wanted (see Kodak, Polaroid, Blockbusters and maybe even [Vanguard - in the near future](https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/articles/no-bitcoin-etfs-at-vanguard-heres-why.html)). Risks arise from developments focusing upon improvements with shorter payback periods and lower chances of failure, that prevent those in the system seeing value in improvements that may displace current [cash cows](https://www.bcg.com/about/overview/our-history/growth-share-matrix). Blockbusters didn’t like the idea of closing down stores in a similar manner to Bitmain and MicroBT disliking fundamental changes to chip or ASIC architecture.  From this position, contributing to bitcoin development does not have to only be about providing remuneration for those checking, monitoring and editing code that will move directly into changes to the bitcoin protocol. Contributing to bitcoin development also doesn’t have to mean that developments move off the base chain to layer 2 or 3, although both remain critical for the continual development of the bitcoin eco-system. Contributing to bitcoin development can instead relate to exploratory projects, that may not themselves change bitcoin core, but may contribute to learning, knowledge and the development of new capabilities that may be useful in the future. Such learning and progress is as much about trying, testing and finding out what doesn’t work, as it is about confirming your ideas were right. [James Dyson](https://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2020/01/30/its-not-failure-that-sets-you-back-its-failing-to-risk-more-of-it/#:~:text=Less%20known%20is%20that%2C%20while,his%20failed%20experiments%20as%20failures.) had 5,126 failed patents while developing his now famous motor and vacuum cleaner business, not to mention the[ digital cash projects that failed before bitcoin](https://store.bitcoinmagazine.com/products/the-genesis-book). Bitcoin development can take a similar approach, with the protocol not only representing the quality of the BIPs that have been implemented, but also reflecting the learning that results from all the unsuccessful BIPs, that were ultimately rejected. [BIP 300](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0300) may never get implemented, but if its limitations provide inspiration for alternative solutions, the BIP can be viewed has valuable even if Sidechains are never brought to the base layer.  Contributions to bitcoin developers could then be distributed more widely than only those working on core, reviewing BIPs and building protocols, but also to the wider community, to those learning about the system, integrating their own knowledge and proposing new BIPs. Only through such a process can novel ideas find their way into the system that will test and challenge developers to build their capabilities and competences ready for [black swan](https://www.britannica.com/topic/black-swan-event) scenarios or new consensus algorithms that can withstand a quantum attack. If developers are not supported in working on projects that will almost certainly fail in the short term, they may miss the stepping-stones to the next project, choosing to only focus upon variation reducing changes. While reducing the short-term risk of introducing unintended consequences to the bitcoin protocol, there may be longer-term consequences that bitcoin will lose the capacity to “take in a new idea”, ossify, and become exposed.  I don’t want any changes to the hard cap (ever), I don’t want any changes to the consensus algorithm (now), I don’t want to have to increase the storage capacity of my node (in the medium term). However, the idea of watching from the side lines as code auditors and quality assurance experts fumble to write new code to fix a mission critical bug would be much worse, as humanity’s best hope of escaping fiat enslavement becomes a valueless *pet rock*. Contributing to the developer ecosystem to build, test and prepare solutions to scenarios before they are needed feels like a good use of resources. Celebrating the work of these, often unsung heroes of bitcoin, may then provide motivation for new entrants, offsetting the carrot of getting *their*code implemented. This reflects some recent discussions across ‘X’, Nostr and popular [podcasts](https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/bitcoin-is-forever-money) that are worth having with major holders and influencers in the field: <img src="https://blossom.primal.net/b850f3066e003806574adeb3b6daa7254592a23f88cebb5f08842c529d544fe1.png"> The long-term consistency of bitcoin as an asset is fundamental for it to maintain relevance as a store of value, but both limiting investment and signalling to others of the need to ossify the protocol misses an important mid to long-term risk. Organisations, such as [Opensats](https://opensats.org/), play an important role in channelling donations across the eco-system, to help ensure that exploratory forms of learning and capability development receive the support they deserve. Gold’s low stock to flow and physical properties made it THE store of value before the invention of the telegraph. However, physics and chemistry then meant gold had already ossified, its physical nature prevented it from adapting to a global world, and ultimately becoming a less relevant (soon to be irrelevant) store of value. Bitcoin doesn’t have these limitations, it can change to reflect the dynamic world in which it exists, so it and the skills of the developer community cannot ossify if it is to remain relevant and valuable in an ever changing, developing and learning world. This led me to an analogy for balancing ossification against bitcoin development. If one is against changes being made to bitcoin unless they address extreme and mission critical issues, but also say that contributing to developers introduces unnecessary risks, appears a touch contradictory. For instance, if you know that someday, there will be a 40 yard dash, but, as a community, you neither know who will run the race (the proposed solution) or who they will be running against (the attack), with failure to win the race being catastrophic (the end of bitcoin), a choice needs to be made in terms of how to approach this risk. Would the sensible option be to say *we’ll just know who’s best on the day* or *let’s get in shape, start practicing and support our best athletes (coders) shine for when/if that day arrives*? From this position, while making and implementing the change can be viewed as a short sprint, the preparation for the sprint may need to be viewed as anything but. And so to return back to where we started, [Old Porteous’s](https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200031h.html) views reflected a by-gone age, knowledgeable and intelligent, able to regurgitate monologues that had been presented to his students countless times over the years, in an authoritative *Oxfordy way*. However, without taking in new knowledge, that reflected technical and societal developments, *the last two thousand years – just oughtn’t to have happened*. This appears very similar to Kodak’s [*Advanced Photo System*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System), that while adding features, was outdated even before it was released in 1996. Bitcoin doesn’t have to change to remain relevant and have value, but that doesn’t mean those in the system should not be striving to gain the necessary capabilities to make changes when the need arises. Thank you to the various podcasters and articles that have helped me form my ideas, in particular [Shinobi](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/why-bitcoins-ossification-will-be-necessary) for his work on ossification and highlighting the need to [give our braincells something to](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/dogma-kills-brain-cells) do, just because we are dogmatic about certain aspects of bitcoin, our laser eyed focus doesn’t have to trap us in a by-gone age.  As per usual, views are my own, I'm not a financial advisor, none of this should be taken as financial advice..... Peace.