The term ossification has become synonymous with Bitcoin. Bitcoiners innately have doubts regarding modification because they are skeptics by nature. This move is based upon the hard fork and adaptability of the virtual currency, such as how the altcoins and other digital assets depend on the smart contract.
There is an excellent reason for modifying BTC as it will benefit vast users globally and end the blocksize war, which influential figures and top-rated developers in the crypto ecosystem initiated. However, analytics depicts that the digital asset isn’t ready for change; continue reading to comprehend why.
Bitcoin Ossification
Ossification can be referred to as the state where a protocol seems to reject changes made. This propagates around bringing in squishy cartilage, which hardens to a bone over time. In this case, bitcoin’s ossification will be much more challenging to change as it develops.
The protocol needed to be developed during the initial years of Bitcoin’s existence, and significantly fewer clients and designers were tweaking the software. Hence, the tech was simpler to modify. However, Bitcoin may be toughening into an osseous specimen that is challenging to alter.
According to the head of product and Research at Bitcoin tech startup Veriphi, Gustavo J.Flores.
“Protocol ossification means a certain time; some say it should be now when Bitcoin doesn’t change any more. The rules are set such as a country’s constitution would be set, unchangeable, since it would be too decentralized to coordinate any change.”
BTC Game theories and Soft Forks
Soft forks are primarily additional code lines introduced to a BTC node to accomplish different objectives. Since their incorporation or marginalization didn’t undermine consensus and divided the network, they are quasi (resulting from poorly coordinated hard forks). We will examine Taproot and Segwit, two of the most well-liked and effective in achieving, to support our argument for Bitcoin’s inability to ossification.
Gregory Maxwell, a designer on the Bitcoin Core, first envisaged Taproot in January 2018, intending to enhance confidentiality and base layer multi-sig operation ability. The code is finished (activated on the block on November 14th, 2021) and only has 520 lines left after almost 4 years. This indicates that each line has been scrutinized in nearly 2 days on average.
This will take some time to persuade the society to run code on its nodes, regardless of whether the proposition passed the initial peer review and entered the adoption stage. In 2020, users were persuaded to approve and give via negotiations in mining pools, exchanges, and wallet devs. But yet again, full nodes would only add the new code if their supreme drivers see perks that have been rigorously examined and proven sound.
On the other hand, SegWit, which in 2017 obtained predominantly positive feedback from developers, mining pools, and exchanges, is still only 50% adopted. As a result, 3 years after the soft fork was first activated by individual nodes, 50% of the network still needs to use the ductility fix.
Bitcoin depends heavily on mistrust and ongoing verification because it lacks dictatorial regimes to impose an agenda or roadmap. The other users can decide never to operate additional code on their nodes while remaining in harmony with the rest of the network, irrespective of whether some users choose to do so.
Adopting novel features and developing speed are obviously not top priorities for bitcoiners. Most users will cite base layer ossification and Lindy effects as the causes of their conservative ideology. Although adding features can be beneficial, they shouldn’t be at the cost of significant changes or needless complexity because, as some of the experts in the field will attest, sophistication is the enemy of accessible, excellent, and auditable security.
Altcoin vs Bitcoin Advancement
The transition fast and break-things mentality of competing altcoins is starkly opposed to this slow and steady methodology to Bitcoin advancement. Some networks place a lot more emphasis on incorporating features than ensuring all runs as smoothly as possible. The central control of these projects is to blame for this.
It is much simpler to implement a blueprint and create base layer adjustments in the situation of Ethereum. In addition to slowdowns’ history of violating preservation, founders who support governance also exist. For instance, Vitalik Buterin, its co-founder, has the right to make decisions to speed the integration of some features or eject vast advancing priorities. In a situation of full nodes, ETH has problems with full archival nodes.
Other virtual currencies that cannot assert they have the entitlement to use the term decentralized make the situation even worse. To their credit, this allows them to work on new functionalities more without worrying about the repercussions. However, the capability to apply Taproot and Schnorr signatures amid Bitcoin’s adoption discussions or to activate SegWit before Bitcoin doesn’t necessarily indicate developments. The same applies to trying to cash in on the Defi craze by copying Ethereum’s design.
Only the high networks in their class have robust projections, while others copy and paste and tweak their parameters. It is advantageous for testing software; nevertheless, it leads to risky investments in failed projects. Considering this circumstance, it’s the reason newbies easily get manipulated into buying false narratives. As per the perspective, Bitcoin is named a prominent market leader due to its brand recognition and first-mover advantage.
Bottom-line
The ossification of Bitcoin is a logical outcome of its popularity. It inspires miners to spend money on pricey equipment and software for mining bitcoins, making it harder for new competitors to compete. As a result, the network becomes less dynamic and more centralized, which could make it less adaptable in the future.