The Consensus Conundrum

Overview

  • Prominent bitcoin dev James O’Beirne (jamesob) tweeted this out in an apparent attempt to break the consensus logjam.

Bitcoin is facing a unique leadership problem as it attempts to implement consensus changes.

  • Many consensus-change proposals are currently on the table, each with valid motivations, such as scaling UTXO ownership or improving self-custody.
  • Historically, successful upgrades like Segwit and Taproot operated under a form of benevolent dictatorship, where decisions were effectively signed off by a single leader or a small oligarchy.
  • Now, Bitcoin is in leaderless mode, attempting a novel meritocratic process that has never been tried.

Key Factors in the “Consensus Conundrum”

  1. Leadership Vacuum
    • Former “benevolent dictators” have stepped back, leaving Bitcoin without a clear decision-making structure.
  2. Wide Design Space
    • The range of improvements (e.g., vaults, rollups, CTV, generic tools) offers no clear “correct” solution.
    • All opinions and approaches have merit, creating ambiguity.
  3. Immense Effort Required
    • Developing proposals is time-consuming, mentally draining, and requires years of experience with Core development.
    • Businesses lack the resources or interest to meaningfully support speculative upgrades.

The Resulting Challenges

  • Leaderlessness vs. Progress: Inaction (ossification) is still a consequential decision, especially as rule changes will become harder as Bitcoin adoption grows (e.g., nation-states buying in).
  • Core Developers’ Role: Although Core devs claim to “just merge what has consensus,” historically, their approval has been necessary for changes to occur.
  • Focus Misalignment: Core development has become more focused on secondary priorities like mempool work, which may not address Bitcoin’s scaling and self-custody issues.

Broader Concerns

  • Bitcoin is not currently scaling to meet global needs.
  • Self-custody remains nerve-wracking and inaccessible for casual users.
  • The lack of leadership and reluctance to engage with consensus proposals could cause Bitcoin to fall short of its potential.

Final Thoughts

The author offers no concrete solutions but hopes that raising these uncomfortable issues will inspire progress toward scaling self-custody and improving Bitcoin’s long-term functionality.

“Most longstanding, fully specified fork proposals are totally fine and would conceptually improve Bitcoin.”

Questions

  • Should we update bitcoin’s consensus rules?
    • Why or why not?
  • What is the best way to activate upgrades on bitcoin?