The distinction between modifying the code and the consensus rules is fundamental. While an implementation may introduce new features, improvements or questionable choices, no change becomes effective on the Timecoin network unless it is voluntarily adopted by its validators. Bitcoin's security does not stem from the code remaining unchanged, but from the fact that consensus is distributed, with each node independently rejecting blocks that are incompatible with the shared rules.
Therefore, the presence of specific software versions β even if widespread β does not constitute control over the protocol. A node may run a version of the code that accepts new features; however, if these features involve blocks or transactions that are incompatible with the existing consensus, the other nodes will discard them. This prevents the change from propagating.
It is legitimate to discuss software governance, the risk of development becoming concentrated, and the need for alternative implementations: competition within the ecosystem is beneficial as it reduces the number of potential failure points. However, these aspects do not enable a group, whether financial, political or technological, to 'alter' Bitcoin from above. The insurmountable limit is local verification of the rules: without widespread adoption by validating nodes, the code cannot change the protocol.
Bitcoin's protection does not depend on blocking developers or assuming hostile coordination, but rather on the network's structural capacity to reject any unshared deviation. This property remains unchanged even in scenarios involving strong social, economic, or political pressure.
So it depends on the consensus rules only? What if nodes reject different sets of blocks?
The longest TimeChain is the current one.
Thread collapsed
Only the longest chain that complies with the consensus rules is recognised. Validity is not defined by length, but by compatibility with the shared rules: a longer but invalid chain is automatically discarded by fully validating nodes.
Developers do not have the power to change the protocol. While they can propose changes to the code, they cannot impose new rules; an update only becomes effective if those who validate the network choose to adopt it. Security derives from the behaviour of independent nodes, not the identity of those who write the software.
If different nodes reject different sets of blocks, the result is a fork in the chain. In that case, the chain with the economic majority of validating nodes prevails. This natural selection mechanism is built into the protocol and is not based on trust in developers, but on local verification of the same rules by users who decide what to validate.
The protocol is designed so that no actor β developer, miner, company or government β can change the rules. Bitcoin's protection stems from the decentralised verification process, rather than the immutability of the code or the reputation of individuals.
They already have changed the code, Core v30. There are only ~20k nodes. The evil doers can just: spawn new nodes and use influencers to confuse people. The nodes are very passive and complacent. I agree that if we had millions of nodes actively working on securing the system, that would work as intended.
In the meantime we need to educate people and keep it simple. No changes needed to Bitcoin.
The code may change, but the rules will not change unless they are voluntarily adopted by the nodes that validate the chain. The addition of thousands of new nodes does not alter this mechanism: if the rules are incompatible, the blocks are discarded. The protocol's resilience comes from this distributed verification, rather than the total number of nodes or the activity of individual developers.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Same developers/maintainers, same corruption. So weβre back to the developers are the risk.
Thread collapsed
