A Prologue: Satoshi’s Protocol

Before I begin this series I would like to make a clear distinction between the protocol and its implementations.

The Bitcoin protocol is primarily economic in nature; a complex rule set that if bent could lead to the collapse of the system as a whole, not just individuals. Conversely, a software implementation is a technical tool — one that if its rules are bent or broken leads to an individual losing money. Miners use this tool to communicate in adherence to the rule set of the protocol. This tool can take many different shapes, and it can have secret features that no other miner can detect nor see. However, no matter how you view or use this tool, it is still just a tool.

Like all tools, it can be used to dismantle and break the machine. By removing the wrong bolt, the whole system can come crashing down. We must have a schematic of the system to determine what we can and should change instead of just what we feel like should be changed.

Changing Direction

Satoshi stated clearly in 2010 that:

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.

Whilst Satoshi was referring to the foundational design of the core protocol, that does not mean the code implementation was to remain static.

As all evidence points towards humanity continuing with the relentless progress that we as humanity deliver through Moore’s law, the hash functions and cryptographic security features will eventually require enhancement. These implementation details do not fundamentally alter Bitcoin’s core design. Satoshi unfortunately never clearly outlined what should or could be changed before departing from the Bitcoin space. Thus, it is our job to reverse engineer the gift of Bitcoin to determine just how strong it is. What can we change? What can we not? What will need changing? What will not?

Methods of resolution

During times of change the one proposing a change provides proof. If you don’t know or don’t understand the answer is no. Disputes cannot rely on disproofs to move forward less the endeavour becomes a never-ending game of “whack-a-mole”. The proposed method for dispute resolution is an iterative process of trial and error following these steps:

• Hypothesise
• Experiment
• Adjust the hypothesis
• Adjust the experiment

As one can see this is a circular process. If we were to follow some peoples proposed approaches and add disproof in this process it is suggested that it is to take the place of the experiment. However, due to inconsistencies such as false assumptions or incomplete variables in theoretical models it could never replace a real world experiment. For example a test environment lacks economic incentives and thus cannot test all areas sufficiently. If we do not understand the system before us, we might break it beyond repair. Let us think critically before we haphazardly advocate for untested changes whose full effects are not understood.

The right questions to ask

In engineering we are taught that if one asks “Why” just 5 times one can get to the root of any problem. In this case we are not interested in the “Whys” just yet. The question why is reserved for when you know the result of something and want to work backwards. The why’s and who’s are not important in this situation; it is the what and how that matter. In this series, you will learn what the proposed changes are and how they will affect the network.

A some of these protocol “improvement” proposals, such as OP_DATASIGVERIFY, are very similar to changes rejected as far back as 2011 such as OP_EVAL and OP_CHECKSIG. I hope that the upcoming series of simply explained articles puts these issues to rest once and for all.

I do not have all the answers, no one ever does. I, as a community member simply want to understand the problem and why people believe Bitcoin needs fixing.

Alex Fauvel, follow me on Twitter to get notified about my next posts.
If you have any questions relating to Bitcoin Cash please get in touch at: info@twohop.ventures and I will do my best to get back to you.

Posts are never intended to be financial advice and are for informational purposes only.