Consensus

The proposal to temporarily restrict arbitrary data in Bitcoin transactions lacks economic nodes, protocol developers, and hashrate. History from the 2017 UASF shows nodes succeed only with broad investor and developer weight behind them.

From The Core Issue: A look back at Segregated Witness and Taproot, Bitcoin's two largest upgrades, and why they were designed the way they were.

The biggest threat to Bitcoin is the concentration of economic influence created by Wall Street Bitcoin products.

Bitcoin nodes are what makes up the Bitcoin network, but without using them to verify your economic activity, they don't impact consensus.

People tend to see low fee environments as a positive thing, a time to save money on using bitcoin. They are not.

Bitcoin faces a one-of-a-kind leadership problem.

Replicating the same types of services and applications of the legacy world on Bitcoin necessitates interacting with the legacy world, giving them leverage over Bitcoin.

The reason conversations around consensus are a dysfunctional mess is not because of the people proposing changes, its because of the people refusing to listen in good faith.

A call to arms for innovation, cooperation and a change in Bitcoin’s discourse to create the means for Bitcoin to fulfill its potential. From “The Primary Issue”.

Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism ensures that work needs to be done in order for transactions to confirm and secures bitcoin in the fairest manner.