“Ossification is complacency. Yes, we all agree that Bitcoin is great. But _I do not agree_ that Bitcoin has reached its full potential. I think complacency is one of the greatest threats to Bitcoin — we must not rest upon our laurels.” — Lopp
The debate between ossification and continuous development of the Bitcoin protocol is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. On one hand, ossification — or making the protocol more stable and unchanging — can provide a sense of security and predictability, which is crucial for a global financial system. It can also prevent unintended consequences or exploits that could arise from frequent changes.
On the other hand, continuous development and planning for future soft forks can ensure the protocol stays relevant, adapts to emerging technologies, and addresses any issues that may arise. This approach can also help to improve the user experience, scalability, and overall performance of the network.
However, whether to change Bitcoin or not might be a false dichotomy. It's possible that the answer lies in a middle ground, where certain aspects of the protocol are allowed to evolve while others remain stable. Perhaps the focus should be on creating a framework that allows for gradual, carefully considered changes, rather than a binary choice between complete ossification and constant development.
Ultimately, the path forward will depend on the priorities and values of the Bitcoin community. Is the goal to create a digital gold standard, prioritizing security and stability above all else, or is it to create a more dynamic, adaptable system that can evolve to meet the needs of its users? By examining these underlying values and priorities, we may be able to find a more nuanced approach that balances the need for stability with the need for innovation and progress.
Article “On Ossification” by Jameson Lopp