Why are Bitcoin Forks Contentious with Adam Back - WBD503

Adam Back, an original cypherpunk, inventor of Hashcash and
co-founder and CEO of Blockstream. We discuss the controversy
around BIP 119: the soft fork proposal aiming to add “covenants”
to Bitcoin. We also talk about the collapse of Luna.


- - - -


Flexible smart contracts are a USP of Ethereum and other
blockchains. Currently, Bitcoin only enables basic smart contract
functionality, such as a timelock that specifies when a
transaction can be spent. BIP 119 proposes to add more
flexibility for applying restrictions to transactions via a new
programme operation code (opcode) called CheckTemplateVerify
(CTV).


CTV would enable conditions on spending UTXOs that would limit,
not when they are spent, but how. These are referred to as
“covenants”. It is envisaged CTV could significantly enhance
Bitcoin by enabling a raft of new and powerful applications to be
developed; these could bring new security, privacy and
scalability benefits.


The concern is that CTV is a significant change and could open up
potential unknown security risks, or that if this functionality
is desirable, it could be possible be better achieved with a
different technical approach


BIP119 has been authored and enthusiastically promoted by Bitcoin
developer, Jeremy Rubin. It has been around now for 2 years, and
whilst Rubin has generated support for BIP119, he has also faced
criticism from prominent Bitcoiners for his approach and so far
there doesn’t seem to be consensus among the protocol development
community on implementing the proposal.


The consideration, approval and activation of changes to Bitcoin
are methodical and slow. Further, such changes normally involve
the development of competing ideas, and a collaborative approach
to combine the best elements from these efforts. Notable critics
feel that BIP119 is being too forcefully promoted and that more
time is needed to test and consider alternatives.


The pressure to innovate will always be there. The issue at hand
is Bitcoin’s USP: it has never been hacked. This has been
hard-won. So it seems BIP119 isn’t going to get a formal
consensus at the moment. Rubin, however, could bypass the Core
developers and implement a UASF. Could we again be about to test
the limits of Bitcoin’s rough consensus process?