BIP119

Bitcoin’s protocol is slow to change by design, but incentivizing the BIP feedback process with bounties could improve development.

It is imperative to ensure the foundation of Bitcoin is built with great care and diligence. Every change should be made with extreme caution.

Explaining the controversy around Bitcoin’s BIP 119 (CTV) proposal and debunking some myths that in part fueled it.

UASF versus URSF is one mechanism for proposed changes to Bitcoin’s code. This should be the way changes to Bitcoin are decided and implemented.

The debate about BIP119 has two central issues being conflated: the proposal itself and the activation mechanisms that could be used to implement it.

There are many differing opinions about BIP119. This Twitter Spaces conversation aims to clear up some of the confusion and offer explanations.

In Bitcoin, it is nearly impossible to find out how much support there is for a proposal without trying it. CTV is a non-invasive change and should be accepted.

Decentralized consensus is required to make changes to the Bitcoin code. Clear processes, standards and norms can ease decision-making in the future.

Bitcoin stands out because it is a digital bearer asset that gives full private property rights to its users, and development must carefully protect this aspect.

BIP119, which adds limited covenants to Bitcoin, is the current conversation and many people question if Speedy Trial for Taproot was a good precedent.