You would only push for ossification if you have never developed software.
Code stops working if you don't maintain it. It starts failing at the edges and slowly migrates to the core. People will stop using it way before it gets to the core features.
GM.
Yeah, get it through your head Dan.
Good morning ✌️🧡
Software is a garden. It's a desperate battle to create order in a world of entropy. And to stop maintenance would be to let chaos take over.
If your allies don't maintain the garden, your enemies will.
ossification is a stupid weasel word anyway
you don't change something that works
you change something that doesn't work
improvements have to be weighed up against how they will be used, the block size is a good example of a case where in some measures it's an improvement but in others it is a major problem
so, please, stop talking about ossification as though it's always a bad thing to never change things
we still mostly use programming languages with braces around function parameters and parentheses around code blocks, and hell, how many thousand years have we been using arabic numbers?
omg, arabic numbers are so ossified, we should invent some new shit for no reason
CORRECT.
This is why PR 29778 needs to be merged.
I strongly suspect there are layers to this note that I don't understand 😜
Never mind! The dumb me thought OSS in this word meant Open Source Software.
This is an after-effect of consulting for corporates moving to open source software alternatives from closed source costly software.
Thanks to nostr:npub1qn49n06hdwwyrtvdyymu2wx57jvhz7anmu20tgsdjjyae3zhwaxsjtl6rj who posted a definition of this word "ossification" 🙏
My bad 😅
Morning☕😊
As a non-technical person I always love to hear insights like this
100% agree!!
Will that prevent Bitcoin from being used as SoV?
the more something needs fixing the more broken it was in the first place
i can't believe this needs to be pointed out
Some things are just changes, not "fixes".
Bitcoin has changed many many times over the years, even by Satoshi. There was even a catastrophic bug that had to be patched. There was no divine gifting of perfect code.
that was 13 years ago, at least
almost nothing since has been important
engineering wise, bitcoin is an epic achievement
when it comes to protocols, really, they are not that complex, there should not be that many fixes after some time, and the reasons for changes need to be intense to make them important
front end is a different thing, but the times that an innovation in interface demanding a back end change is nearly a non-happening in history
skill issue
Can't maintain your user base if you ossify, monetary products can't maintain value unless they maintain user base, BTC can't be a store of value if it doesn't keep adapting.
not true. There is tons of stuff in most OSs that hasn’t been touched in decades. Also, most hardware device‘s software is running well without any maintenance.
Agreed in a general sense but bitcoin is special. This isn't about software, it is risk management
Enterprise people love saying that to every software that is core of their business. But there is nothing special about Bitcoin. It's a piece of software just like any other. What users do WITH it is the special part.
Enterprise software is centralized, bitcoin is not. If enterprise software fucks up big time it's almost always recoverable. Not the case with bitcoin.
Good morning sir!
I think Saylor's point is a bit more nuanced then that.
The TLDR I got out of his interview with Livera was that he does not think we should make protocol upgrades that create controversy among stakeholders (miners) or which might antagonize governments (currency monopoly). This makes sense in the context of someone who simply wants their stack to increase in value and who believes his stack will not be threatened by the state.
The more I come to understand his position the more sympathetic I become, and it seems likely his views will be shared by a growing number of normy tradfi investors as their involvement increases.
I think he's taking a stance that in 2017 people would have applauded: don't change Bitcoin to make your VC funded buisness plan viable.
That said, I think he does not understand Bitcoin at a technical level very well or share the cyberpunk's opposition to state control and surveillance of money.
If Saylor is going to be the official Bitcoin villian for 2024, he's at least a much more nuanced and interesting version than Jihan Wu, Ver or Faketoshi.
it's possible to freeze certain stuff. even desirable.
https://docs.urbit.org/glossary/kelvin
https://git.sr.ht/~plan/plunder/tree/master/item/doc/plan/PLAN.md
This isn't unilaterally true. some code can be frozen (especially simple, functional code. consider an "increment by 1" function). as much code as CAN be frozen, SHOULD be frozen. of course this won't be all of it.
nostr:note104z2gq0aatnxduy6eqysuy3hguzl4vfgg2tnyz4rg3ccg0wyxhrsamne8y
That's not the point of ossification.
There is a massive difference between gardening, maintenance work and new consensus changes.
Sure, but that's not what I hear when people want to ossify. They want a full stop to any change to the code. Which is just a ridiculous proposition. I would argue that if you want to keep maintaining it you should not use the word ossify. Otherwise, you will be mixed with the people that don't want any change in the code whatsoever.
Opinion are like assholes, everyone has a unique one.
They should turn those opinions into forks and let the public decide which coin has more value and which node to run.
Ossification started out as a propagandistic slur against those who want only regular maintenance and the response was to embrace the term ossification as a middle-finger. It doesn't mean actual ossification.
💯
dont see a lot of devs explaining what was so great about taproot these days but idk
