Symptomatic, Market-Driven Approach not specified

[BitcoinErrorLog]

An effective way to manage Bitcoin's evolution without formal governance is through symptomatic, market-driven adaptation. This approach focuses on adapting to unavoidable, market-induced symptoms rather than proactively introducing speculative changes.

The idea is that Bitcoin should remain fundamentally resistant to change unless observable market conditions—such as lasting excessive transaction fees or significant congestion—demand an adaptation. By waiting for symptoms to manifest through market signals, stakeholders can gauge when change becomes a necessity. This minimizes the risk of speculative or unnecessary interventions and ensures that any modifications are a direct response to demonstrated need.

This also changes the narrative to be about gathering data about Bitcoin usage and its effects from the real world, establishing consensus on trigger points, etc. Real numbers, not guessing games fueled by a desire for complexity.

Symptomatic adaptation means having solutions researched and ready but not rushing them into activation. The cost of any change should be high to prevent arbitrary or malicious modifications. This cost is naturally imposed by only implementing solutions when symptoms become undeniable and no better alternatives exist. Such a high barrier ensures that any change benefits the majority of stakeholders and is aligned with Bitcoin's decentralized ethos.

In a market-driven model, network changes are triggered by economic incentives—the collective behavior of miners, nodes, and users responding to strain. When transaction fees rise to unsustainable levels, stakeholders have a shared interest in alleviating the problem. This provides a natural trigger for upgrades, driven by economic self-interest rather than top-down governance.

On-chain scaling within symptomatic adaptation suggests that it should only be considered when the market pressures make it unavoidable. This prevents premature or contentious changes and ensures that scaling is pursued as a collective necessity, backed by overwhelming consensus. It aligns with the principle that alterations to the Bitcoin protocol should be a last resort, preserving stability and minimizing risks.

BCAP’s analysis would benefit from exploring how symptomatic, market-driven adaptation aligns with Bitcoin's design. This model ensures that changes are minimal, necessary, and driven by the collective pressures of the network, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of centralized governance & speculative complexity and all of the risks those bring.

[moneyball]

A non-goal for the BCAP project is to take a position on the philosophy of consensus change. However, perhaps a good idea for the project is to describe various philosophies and approaches in an appendix or in a new section of the project. What you propose could be one of those. Jameson Lopp's recent post is well written and another viewpoint https://blog.lopp.net/on-ossification/

…

On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 2:37 PM John Carvalho ***@***.***> wrote: An effective way to manage Bitcoin's evolution without formal governance is through symptomatic, market-driven adaptation. This approach focuses on adapting to unavoidable, market-induced symptoms rather than proactively introducing speculative changes. The idea is that Bitcoin should remain fundamentally resistant to change unless observable market conditions—such as lasting excessive transaction fees or significant congestion—demand an adaptation. By waiting for symptoms to manifest through market signals, stakeholders can gauge when change becomes a necessity. This minimizes the risk of speculative or unnecessary interventions and ensures that any modifications are a direct response to demonstrated need. This also changes the narrative to be about gathering data about Bitcoin usage and its effects from the real world, establishing consensus on trigger points, etc. Real numbers, not guessing games fueled by a desire for complexity. Symptomatic adaptation means having solutions researched and ready but not rushing them into activation. The cost of any change should be high to prevent arbitrary or malicious modifications. This cost is naturally imposed by only implementing solutions when symptoms become undeniable and no better alternatives exist. Such a high barrier ensures that any change benefits the majority of stakeholders and is aligned with Bitcoin's decentralized ethos. In a market-driven model, network changes are triggered by economic incentives—the collective behavior of miners, nodes, and users responding to strain. When transaction fees rise to unsustainable levels, stakeholders have a shared interest in alleviating the problem. This provides a natural trigger for upgrades, driven by economic self-interest rather than top-down governance. On-chain scaling within symptomatic adaptation suggests that it should only be considered when the market pressures make it unavoidable. This prevents premature or contentious changes and ensures that scaling is pursued as a collective necessity, backed by overwhelming consensus. It aligns with the principle that alterations to the Bitcoin protocol should be a last resort, preserving stability and minimizing risks. BCAP’s analysis would benefit from exploring how symptomatic, market-driven adaptation aligns with Bitcoin's design. This model ensures that changes are minimal, necessary, and driven by the collective pressures of the network, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of centralized governance & speculative complexity and all of the risks those bring. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#24>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPUA3IEO7WTHYDJPLFFEDZ7PTRNAVCNFSM6AAAAABRMHT4GOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGY2DEMZWGUZTKOI> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>