Summary
Bitcoin's development is driven by a global open-source community, with protocol changes formalized through Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs). These proposals undergo rigorous community review and consensus mechanisms, including miners' signal voting. This open-source model, while promoting transparency and broad participation, also brings challenges in reaching consensus quickly and coordinating development. In a system without a central authority, the decision-making process can become lengthy and contentious.
ViaBTC Capital will dissect the unique framework of Bitcoin's decentralized development, reviewing the core role and controversies of Bitcore Core in protocol maintenance while revisiting the activation paths of critical upgrades such as SegWit and Taproot. It will delve into the 'programmability' dispute triggered by new BIPs like OP_CAT, pointing to a soul-searching question: Is Bitcoin's 'immutability equals security' creed becoming the ultimate shackle on its ecological innovation?
1. Overview of Bitcoin's Decentralized Development Model
1.1 The Core Role of Bitcoin Core in Protocol Maintenance
Bitcoin Core is the primary software implementation of the Bitcoin protocol and is regarded as its reference client. It includes full node software for complete blockchain validation and a Bitcoin wallet. Most Bitcoin users and miners choose to use Bitcoin Core as their full node, which is crucial for maintaining the decentralization of the network and resisting potential attacks. Additionally, the project also maintains related software, such as the cryptographic library libsecp256k1.
Even though Bitcoin's development is decentralized, by June 2025, about 90% of full nodes in the network use Bitcoin Core, which gives Bitcoin Core a unique and de facto influential status as the "reference implementation." This de facto authority means that once changes are merged into the Bitcoin Core codebase, they often become the de facto standard, even without explicit enforcement from a central authority. This widespread and voluntary adoption effectively defines the operational rules and current state of the protocol. Therefore, developers contributing to the Bitcoin Core project, especially its maintainers, hold significant influence. Their work, after rigorous review and merging, directly impacts the overall functionality and security of the network. This has created a unique form of "soft centralization" around the Bitcoin Core project, but this centralization is continuously balanced by its transparent open-source nature and distributed peer review process.
1.2 Evolution of the Maintainer Role: From Satoshi Nakamoto to Collective Management
The role of Bitcoin Core maintainers has undergone significant evolution, transitioning from the initial dominance of Satoshi Nakamoto to a collective management model shared by multiple maintainers.
Satoshi's Initial Involvement and Departure: The mysterious creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, initially developed and actively maintained the Bitcoin Core project until the end of 2010. In April 2011, Satoshi announced that he had "moved on to other projects" and transferred the maintenance responsibility of Bitcoin Core to Gavin Andresen. This moment marked the first shift of Bitcoin leadership from Satoshi Nakamoto to the community, representing an important milestone in the project's decentralized development.
Gavin Andresen's Succession and Controversy: Gavin Andresen was viewed as Satoshi Nakamoto's "successor," taking over as the chief maintainer of Bitcoin Core and leading Bitcoin's development in the following years, making it more stable and widely accepted. However, in 2016, Gavin Andresen became embroiled in a major controversy when he publicly claimed that Australian Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto. This assertion was later widely questioned by the community, leading to Gavin Andresen's temporary revocation of commit access to the Bitcoin master code repository on GitHub by other maintainers.
Wladimir J. van der Laan and Subsequent Collective Maintenance: On April 8, 2014, Wladimir J. van der Laan succeeded Gavin Andresen as chief maintainer. Since then, the role of chief maintainer has gradually evolved to be shared by multiple maintainers, further decentralizing the release process. Currently, only a few developers have modification rights to the Bitcoin Core code, with responsibilities including merging contributors' patches and performing final checks to ensure the patches are secure and align with project goals.
The evolution of the role of Bitcoin Core maintainers, from a single leader to a collective of multiple maintainers, reflects the project's ongoing effort to seek a balance between decentralization and efficiency. Initially, Satoshi Nakamoto, as the sole decision-maker, was able to rapidly advance the project. However, as the project matured and the community grew, especially after Satoshi's departure, the risks of this model became increasingly apparent. Distributing authority among multiple maintainers can reduce the risk of single points of failure and ensure that the decision-making process is more robust and resistant to censorship. However, it also means that the speed of achieving consensus and implementing significant changes may slow down. This inherent trade-off reveals the complexity of governance in decentralized systems: how to maintain sufficient efficiency and direction without sacrificing core decentralization principles.
At the same time, the composition of the maintainer team and the internal power dynamics have a profound impact on the development direction and stability of the entire Bitcoin ecosystem. Blockstream is a company focused on Bitcoin and blockchain infrastructure, and several developers involved in maintaining Bitcoin Core have worked at this company. By supporting these developers, Blockstream has become an important force in contributing to the Bitcoin Core code, which has also raised community concerns about its development independence and corporate influence. For example, Blockstream insists on solving Bitcoin scalability through second-layer networks, opposing direct scaling of the main chain, leading to community splits and Bitcoin forks. Furthermore, the trust crisis between developers and miners, as well as fierce competition with the Ethereum community, has made Blockstream a focal point of ongoing controversy within the crypto circle.
1.3 Contributions and Controversies of the Developer Community
Bitcoin's development is an open and collaborative process, where anyone can propose code changes, review, or test open pull requests. Since the project's inception, over a thousand developers have contributed to it, improving software functionality, fixing bugs, and adding new features while interacting with the community for feedback and issue resolution. The decision-making process is collaborative and typically relies on consensus between developers and the broader community.
However, this openness has also led to disputes within the community, especially following the emergence of new use cases such as inscriptions.
Luke Dashjr and the Inscription Controversy: Bitcoin developer and co-founder of the Ocean mining pool, Luke Dashjr, has strongly criticized inscriptions such as Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens, calling them "garbage information" on Bitcoin. He argues that inscriptions exploit a loophole in Bitcoin Core by disguising data as program code to bypass the size limits on additional data in transactions. Dashjr contends that this "loophole" was fixed in Bitcoin Knots v25.1 and hopes Bitcoin Core will also address it before the release of v27. He even believes that once this loophole is fixed, Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens will cease to exist because they "never really existed, they are all fraud."
Market Power Displayed by Inscriptions: Although Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens are viewed as "garbage information" by conservatives, they have shown strong vitality in the market. According to Dune Analytics, as of December 2023, inscription-related transactions have generated an additional $172 million in revenue for miners, and this real economic incentive is reshaping the Bitcoin ecosystem. Innovative projects like Taproot Wizards are continuously exploring the boundaries of Bitcoin's programmability, indicating that market forces may bypass the technical limitations set by developers. In decentralized systems, economic incentives are becoming the most powerful weapon to break ideological shackles.
The Deeper Implications of Controversy: Some developers insist that Bitcoin should maintain functional purity, arguing that any non-core financial function could threaten network security. This "immutability" philosophy avoids the ecological splits caused by frequent hard forks but is now facing severe challenges. When developers attempt to eliminate innovative applications like inscriptions by fixing "loopholes," they effectively gain de facto "functional audit rights," a centralizing tendency that contradicts the decentralized spirit of Bitcoin. If developers successfully block innovative applications, it solidifies the notion that "immutability" has become a constraint on innovation. The outcome of this game will determine whether Bitcoin can maintain its security advantage while avoiding becoming a victim of technological conservatism. In the context of rapid innovation in competing public chains like Ethereum, the Bitcoin community needs to find a balance: maintaining the core values of network security and stability while allowing space for reasonable innovation. After all, in a world dominated by code and computing power, the market will ultimately deliver the most just verdict.
2. Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs): The Formal Upgrade Mechanism
2.1 Definition, Purpose, and Importance of BIPs
Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) are standardized documents outlining potential changes, improvements, or new features for the Bitcoin protocol. They provide a collaborative platform for developers, researchers, and community members to propose, discuss, and implement changes, ensuring transparency and broad community consensus. BIPs enable the Bitcoin community to address emerging challenges and adapt to society's evolving needs, allowing anyone to contribute to its development while ensuring changes are made transparently and with broad community consensus.
2.2 Types of BIPs
Bitcoin BIPs are primarily divided into three types, each with its unique purpose:
Standards Track BIPs: These BIPs describe changes that affect the consensus rules of the Bitcoin protocol. They propose modifications to fundamental aspects of how Bitcoin operates and require broad community consensus for implementation. For example, SegWit and the Taproot upgrade fall into this category.
Informational BIPs: Informational BIPs provide educational materials, general guidelines, or research findings related to Bitcoin. They offer valuable insights into various aspects of the Bitcoin ecosystem for developers and enthusiasts, helping deepen their understanding of the network. This type of BIP does not change Bitcoin's code or rules; rather, it serves as suggestions or recommendations aimed at educating the community.
Process BIPs: Process BIPs propose changes to the development process of Bitcoin itself. They aim to improve efficiency, governance, or decision-making mechanisms within the Bitcoin community. Process BIPs can involve topics such as code review processes, project management methods, or community coordination initiatives. They are similar to standards track BIPs in that they also require community consensus, but they apply to processes outside the Bitcoin protocol.
The categorization and standardization process of BIPs reflects the Bitcoin community's strategy for managing complex technical evolution in a decentralized environment. By classifying proposals into different types, the community can adopt varying levels of scrutiny and consensus strength for changes of different natures. For example, standard tracking BIPs that affect consensus rules require the highest consensus threshold as they may lead to network splits, while informational BIPs are more lenient. This structured approach, while potentially cumbersome, minimizes the risks posed to the core stability of the network from malicious or poorly considered changes.
2.3 The Lifecycle and Activation Process of BIPs
A Bitcoin BIP must go through several different stages before becoming part of the Bitcoin protocol:
Draft Phase: During this phase, proposals are created and refined by their authors. BIPs undergo initial review and community feedback.
Proposed Phase: During this phase, the BIP gains more attention in the community. It is submitted for further review and feedback from Bitcoin developers, researchers, and enthusiasts. This phase allows for collective brainstorming and refinement of the proposal to ensure its robustness.
Final Phase: Once a BIP has gained broad support in the community and has undergone thorough review, it enters the final phase. During this phase, the proposal is included in the Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIP) repository, indicating it is ready for implementation.
Implementation and Activation: Bitcoin developers subsequently integrate changes into the Bitcoin protocol through consensus. For major changes at the protocol level, there is usually an activation threshold, which is met only when enough network participants upgrade to the new version for the improvement to take effect. Upgrades can be soft forks (backward compatible), like SegWit, allowing old nodes to continue operating; or hard forks (incompatible), which may lead to network splits and create new cryptocurrencies, such as the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) hard fork in 2017.
This multi-stage lifecycle of BIPs and strict activation process is a core manifestation of Bitcoin's decentralized governance model. It ensures that any modifications to the protocol are not imposed by a small group but are achieved through extensive discussion and voluntary adoption by multiple stakeholders. This mechanism effectively combines technical decision-making with social consensus, making the evolution of the protocol an organic and highly anti-censorship process. On the other hand, this consensus-driven model may lead to slow upgrades, but it greatly enhances the resilience and credibility of the Bitcoin network, as it avoids the risks of network splits or centralization that could arise from forced changes. Each successful BIP activation demonstrates the community's ability to collaboratively maintain and develop this global, trustless monetary system through cooperation and compromise.
3. Major BIPs and Their Impact
The evolution of the Bitcoin protocol is achieved through a series of key BIPs that significantly enhance the network's efficiency, privacy, and scalability.
3.1 Important BIPs that Have Been Activated
BIP 16 (P2SH): Introduced the 'Pay-to-Script-Hash' (P2SH) functionality, activated in 2012. P2SH simplifies complex script operations and enhances transaction efficiency and privacy by allowing senders to send funds to a script hash instead of directly to a public key address. It keeps spending conditions hidden until the funds are spent, saving blockchain space and enhancing privacy. P2SH addresses typically start with '3,' distinguishing them from traditional Bitcoin addresses starting with '1.' The most common use case for P2SH is multi-signature transactions, which require multiple signatures to execute, providing an additional layer of security for businesses and organizations. It is also crucial for the development of second-layer solutions like the Lightning Network, which supports off-chain transactions by conditionally locking funds, significantly increasing Bitcoin's transaction capacity. As a soft fork, BIP 16 means that old nodes can still verify and process transactions following the updated rules, maintaining backward compatibility.
BIP 141 (SegWit): Activated in 2017, it resolved transaction malleability and scaling issues through 'Segregated Witness' (SegWit). Transaction malleability refers to the possibility of changing the transaction ID (TXID) after modifying the signature, even though the transaction's effect remains unchanged, which poses risks to off-chain protocols. SegWit fixed this by moving the unlock script (signature) to a new 'witness' field of the transaction data and excluding it from the TXID calculation, thereby making the TXID reliable. Additionally, SegWit introduced 'weight units' instead of simple bytes to calculate block size, effectively increasing block capacity. Standard bytes count as 4 weight units, while witness bytes count as 1 weight unit, providing a 75% discount on unlock data, freeing up more space for transaction data in blocks. SegWit was also implemented as a soft fork, meaning that non-upgraded old nodes will still treat SegWit blocks as valid, ensuring network compatibility. It laid the foundation for second-layer protocols, such as the Lightning Network, allowing them to be built securely on top of Bitcoin.
BIP 340, 341, 342 (Taproot): These BIPs collectively make up the Taproot upgrade, which was activated in November 2021. Taproot is the most significant upgrade since SegWit, aimed at enhancing Bitcoin's privacy, efficiency, and scalability, as well as increasing the flexibility of smart contracts.
BIP 340 (Schnorr Signatures): Introduced Schnorr signatures, a more secure and efficient signature scheme compared to traditional ECDSA signatures. The key advantage of Schnorr signatures lies in their key aggregation capability, which allows multiple public keys and signatures to be combined into one, making multi-signature transactions appear indistinguishable from regular single-signature transactions on-chain, thereby enhancing privacy and reducing data volume.
BIP 341 (Taproot): Introduced a general framework that integrates Schnorr signatures, Merkleized Abstract Syntax Trees (MAST), and Pay-to-Taproot (P2TR) mechanisms. MAST allows for hiding unused complex conditions in transactions, revealing relevant parts only when actually spent, thus improving privacy and reducing on-chain data volume, aiding scalability. P2TR provides a new way to spend Bitcoin, combining the functionalities of P2PK and P2SH, further enhancing privacy and making all Taproot outputs appear similar on-chain.
BIP 342 (Tapscript): Modifies Bitcoin's script language to be compatible with BIP 340 and BIP 341, thus supporting Schnorr signatures, batch verification, and signature hash improvements. The introduction of Tapscript also lays the groundwork for further updates to Bitcoin scripts in the future.
These activated BIPs reflect the strategy of the Bitcoin protocol to continue functional expansion and efficiency optimization while maintaining its core stability and security. By prioritizing soft forks over hard forks, the Bitcoin community has successfully introduced significant improvements while avoiding the risks of network splits. This emphasis on backward compatibility is a key factor that allows the Bitcoin ecosystem to maintain stability. It indicates that the evolution of the protocol is not a one-off event but a process of gradual realization of a more powerful, private, and efficient network through iterative and prudent changes.
3.2 BIPs Currently Under Discussion or Proposal
The Bitcoin community continues to discuss and propose new BIPs to address changing needs and technological challenges.
BIP-177 (Redefining Satoshi as the Base Unit): This proposal suggests redefining Bitcoin's smallest unit 'Satoshi' as the new base unit '1 Bitcoin,' thereby simplifying amount displays, eliminating decimals, and aligning better with the payment habits of the Lightning Network. This proposal only involves display adjustments for interfaces such as wallets and exchanges and does not alter the underlying protocol or total supply limits of Bitcoin. Supporters argue that this can reduce cognitive burden, eliminate new users' 'unit fear,' and simplify user experience as it aligns with the real design of Bitcoin's protocol, which counts in integer units. For example, displaying '0.00010000 BTC' as '10,000 BTC.' However, the proposal also faces resistance, primarily due to objections that it suggests abandoning the 'Satoshi' unit named after Satoshi Nakamoto, which could lead to user confusion.
OP_CAT (BIP-347): OP_CAT is an opcode that allows concatenating two pieces of data on the Bitcoin script stack into one. 'CAT' stands for 'concatenation.' OP_CAT was initially part of Bitcoin's implementation but was disabled in 2010 due to concerns over potential vulnerabilities and denial-of-service attacks. In recent years, with the introduction of enhanced script capabilities and size limits (Tapscript being 520 bytes) during the Taproot upgrade in 2021, interest in reactivating OP_CAT has rekindled.
Potential Uses: OP_CAT can achieve various complex functions, such as directly constructing and verifying Merkle trees on the stack, enabling unilateral withdrawal paths, and allowing transactions to depend on other transactions already included in blocks. It can also simulate 'covenants' through the characteristics of Schnorr signatures, allowing fine-grained introspection and commitment to various fields of transactions. This makes it possible to build more complex smart contracts and decentralized applications, such as CatVM.
Activation Path and Challenges: Reintroducing OP_CAT will require a soft fork. This process involves a formal BIP proposal and thorough community review, implementation in Bitcoin Core, extensive testing, and achieving broad consensus among miners, developers, and users. Although OP_CAT has been 'extensively tested and researched' and is technically 'simple and clear,' the activation path still depends on whether broad consensus can be reached among 'miners, developers, and users.' Some developers predict that Bitcoin Core developers may reach consensus on OP_CAT or OP_CTV by 2025, but actual implementation may still take 1-2 years.
Proponents:
Fractal Bitcoin has enabled OP_CAT on its mainnet since September 2024, serving as a real-time testing platform for new protocols utilizing its functionalities.
StarkWare has established a $1 million OP_CAT research fund aimed at promoting research related to activating OP_CAT on Bitcoin. Meanwhile, it is also working on integrating OP_CAT with its zero-knowledge proof technology (STARK).
CatVM is a trustless cross-chain bridge based on OP_CAT proposed by Taproot Wizards.
BIP-420 (Unofficial BIP): The official number is actually BIP-347. BIP-420 was initially created by community members as an unofficial number for the OP_CAT proposal in the Bitcoin network to address the slow allocation of proposal numbers. Traditionally, BIP numbers are assigned by a single developer, leading to OP_CAT waiting approximately six months for formal numbering. In early 2024, developer Anthony Towns created an alternative numbering system, BINANA, and assigned BIP-2024-0001 to OP_CAT. Subsequently, members of Taproot Wizards initiated the 'BIP-420' campaign, leveraging the symbolic number '420' to promote the proposal. Meanwhile, core developer Ava Chow proposed adding more BIP editors to expedite the numbering allocation process. Ultimately, after community push and expansion of the editorial group, the OP_CAT proposal was officially assigned the number BIP-347 on April 24, 2024, marking its official recognition and broader discussion foundation.
BIP-119 (OP_CTV): Proposed by Jeremy Rubin in 2021, it implements more flexible transaction rules through 'CheckTemplateVerify' (CTV), supporting covenant functionality. Similar to OP_CAT, this proposal aims to add a 'covenant' function to the Bitcoin network akin to Ethereum smart contracts, such as allowing funds to be restricted to transfer only to specified addresses or enabling automated transactions, like scheduled transfers, thereby enhancing Bitcoin's programmability. This proposal has also not been activated, and community discussions are ongoing, with some developers turning to support OP_CCV (BIP-443) as an alternative.
BIP-348 OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (CSFS): A new Bitcoin opcode OP_CSFS proposed by Jeremy Rubin and Brandon Black in November 2024. This opcode allows verification of whether a signature is valid for any message, not just the hash of the current transaction, by retrieving the signature, public key, and message from the data stack for verification. OP_CSFS is an important tool for implementing more flexible covenants, enabling the creation of complex conditional logic to restrict fund spending, enhancing security (e.g., vaults and decentralized protocol anti-theft), and can be combined with opcodes like OP_CAT to build more complex smart contracts. Both BIP-119 (CTV) and BIP-348 (CSFS) are comparatively more cautious than BIP-347 (OP_CAT), with some expecting them to go live on the Bitcoin mainnet sooner than OP_CAT.
Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRAMP): A significant proposal put forth by a Bitcoin developer aimed at protecting Bitcoin from future quantum computing threats through a hard fork. The plan mandates that the Bitcoin network migrate from older wallets using traditional ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm) encryption to new wallets employing post-quantum cryptographic techniques. Quantum computers, utilizing quantum bits (qubits) capable of existing in multiple states simultaneously, greatly enhance computational power and could potentially break existing encryption algorithms, thus threatening Bitcoin's security. The proposal sets a block height as a cutoff point for migration, at which time nodes will refuse to process transactions still using traditional encrypted addresses, forcing users to migrate funds to more secure wallets. Although this is a preventive measure, quantum computing has not yet reached a level that poses a threat to Bitcoin, but recent breakthroughs in quantum processors by companies like Microsoft have sparked intense community discussions and attention regarding the hard fork.
These BIPs currently under discussion and proposal reflect the ongoing efforts of the Bitcoin community to balance innovation, security, and decentralization. The reactivation of opcodes such as OP_CAT and OP_CTV aims to unlock more advanced functionalities of Bitcoin scripts to support more complex smart contracts and applications. However, this functional expansion must be conducted under strict security reviews to avoid repeating historical mistakes that could lead to potential denial-of-service attacks. At the same time, seemingly simple user interface changes like BIP-177 have sparked deeper discussions regarding culture, user perception, and brand image, indicating that the evolution of Bitcoin is not merely a technical issue but also a reflection of social and cultural phenomena.
4. The Impact of Mining Pools on Protocol Upgrades
Miners play a key role in the activation of Bitcoin protocol upgrades, especially in the adoption process of soft forks.
4.1 Miner Signals and Activation Mechanisms
Bitcoin protocol upgrades are typically initiated through miners' 'signal voting.' Miners indicate their support and readiness for a specific BIP by including a specific signal (for example, using a designated version number in the block header) in the blocks they mine. For soft forks, a preset activation threshold (such as 95% of blocks signaling over a certain period) must usually be met to activate the new rules. Once this threshold is reached, the soft fork is implemented, and the community (including miners, full nodes, exchanges, payment service providers, etc.) must upgrade their software to the new version.
4.2 The Possibility of Miners' Veto Power
Miners effectively hold veto power in the activation of soft forks. If miners do not signal readiness, the upgrade cannot be activated. This was particularly evident in the activation of SegWit: miners initially showed low support until market demand for competing proposals showed weakness before signaling readiness. This phenomenon indicates that miners' decisions are not always based purely on technical considerations but are significantly influenced by market dynamics and economic incentives.
4.3 Economic Incentives for Miners
Mining pools, as collections of miners' computing resources, have a significant influence in the Bitcoin network, giving them substantial decision-making power over the adoption and activation of BIPs. Meanwhile, miners' behaviors are often driven by economic incentives. For example, the rise of inscriptions has led to a significant increase in transaction fees on the Bitcoin network, providing miners with considerable income, which has made many miners willing to accept inscriptions, even if some developers view them as 'garbage information.' This economic rationale explains why certain use cases can still gain miners' support and be included in blocks despite controversy. By choosing which version of the software to run and whether to signal support, miners effectively exercise a form of 'soft voting power.' This power is not absolute, as users and full nodes can enforce consensus by rejecting blocks that do not comply with their rules, but the collective actions of miners are undoubtedly a key variable in the evolution of the protocol.
5. The Prolonged Upgrade Process
As Bitcoin is a decentralized network, any changes require broad consensus from developers, miners, and users. This consensus process is complex and time-consuming, leading to a slow upgrade process for Bitcoin. Historical disputes like the 2017 block size debate (which led to the Bitcoin Cash fork) have shown the risks of divergence, while the Taproot upgrade (activated in 2021) took years of discussion and testing. Additionally, technical complexities like the potential security risks of OP_CTV and OP_CAT mean that the Bitcoin community faces a lengthy process to advance these BIPs. Thus, the Bitcoin wallet Xverse has launched a community petition site (https://whatthefork.wtf/) to allow users to express their desire for BTC soft forks supporting OP_CTV and OP_CAT through wallet signatures, aiming to push for community voice.
Due to slow upgrades, many Bitcoin ecosystem projects design complex solutions under current limited functionality. For example, BitVM (Bitcoin Virtual Machine) proposes to achieve smart contract functionality through an off-chain computation and on-chain verification using a prover-verifier model, without changing consensus rules. Another strategy is to utilize Bitcoin as a data availability layer (DA), leveraging Bitcoin's security to store data and support sidechains or Rollup expansions.
6. Conclusion
The development and maintenance of Bitcoin is a unique and continually evolving decentralized process. Driven by a global open-source developer community, Bitcoin's development model is a complex balancing act due to the absence of a single entity controlling its evolution: advancing technological innovation cautiously through a structured BIP process and consensus mechanisms among multiple stakeholders under principles of openness, decentralization, and community-driven governance. Consequently, this model inevitably results in slower Bitcoin development, and we need to continue observing whether it can adapt to new challenges and demands while ensuring the resilience, security, and anti-censorship of the Bitcoin network.
