In a recent interview with Bitcoin Magazine, Shinobi sat down with Blockstream's Andrew Poelstra to discuss colleague Rusty Russell's ambitious proposal. Rusty plans to restore many abandoned features from Bitcoin code, a bold move that could significantly enhance the functionality and expressiveness of Bitcoin scripts.

Understanding the new cost model

A central aspect of the “Recovering the Great Text” proposal is the introduction of a new cost model for opcodes. Currently, in Bitcoin, every transaction costs the same, regardless of its computational complexity. However, this model does not accurately reflect the true cost of script execution, leading to potential inefficiencies and limitations. Rusty's new cost model seeks to address this problem by assigning different costs to opcodes based on their computational requirements. This approach is a significant departure from the current model and aligns more closely with how computational costs are handled in other blockchain platforms such as Ethereum.

Andrew Poelstra highlighted the potential benefits and challenges of this new model. “The new cost model is very interesting and is kind of a departure from the way Bitcoin works today,” he noted. The new model will ensure that scripts are priced more fairly based on the resources they consume, which could prevent spam attacks and other issues.

Challenges and consensus building

Implementing this plan is not without challenges. One major concern is the complexity of determining the execution time of scripts. In Ethereum, for example, transactions have a gas limit to prevent excessive calculations. Poelstra acknowledged the similarities, saying: “I'm going to say something mean here and say that sounds like gas, doesn't it?” However, he stressed that unlike Ethereum, where running out of fuel still costs the user, in Bitcoin, a failed transaction does not result in a loss of funds.

Moving forward, the Bitcoin developer community needs to build consensus around this plan. Poelstra reported a notable shift in society's attitude toward textual expression over the past few months. This change is due in part to the emergence of new use cases and the realization that restrictive approaches may hinder innovation. “There's been a really interesting kind of mood shift in the Bitcoin developer community over the last six months, just like the last six months,” he noted.

Bitcoin ossification processing

The path forward includes several key steps. First, developers need to write a suitable proposal, including reference applications and test vectors. This proposal will then be reviewed and discussed within the community to gather feedback and build consensus. Poelstra stressed the importance of this process, saying: “In the beginning the steps are very clear, right? You write a proper proposal, you have a reference notation, you write test vectors, you get criteria.”

A large part of the consensus building process will involve addressing the controversy surrounding fossilization – the idea that the Bitcoin protocol must remain unchanged to maintain stability and security. Some members of the community, known as maximalists, believe that Bitcoin should resist changes to avoid introducing potential weaknesses and maintain its current strength. Poelstra recognizes this concern but argues that some changes, like Rusty's proposal, are necessary for Bitcoin's continued growth and functionality.

The debate centers on whether the risks associated with the changes outweigh the benefits. Bitcoin is indeed evolving, Poelstra noted, citing the emergence of rankings and patterns as examples of how the network can be used in new, unexpected ways. He stressed that refusal to adapt could limit Bitcoin's potential and that economic incentives within the network would naturally determine usage priorities.

“We need to talk to people who identify as petrificationists or who we would call ossificationists, right? People who don't want Bitcoin to change. And I think we have to argue passionately and correctly that this is something that would be good for us,” he said. Poelstra: “Bitcoin” He believes that by clarifying the benefits of enhanced textual expression and addressing the concerns of fossilization advocates, a balanced and informed consensus can be reached.

Furthermore, Poelstra highlighted that while change comes with risks, it also opens up opportunities for fundamental improvements, such as better scalability, enhanced security through vaults, and more efficient use of blockchain space with mechanisms like coin pools. These improvements could make Bitcoin more robust and adaptable to future needs.

The next steps include not only the technical process of formalizing the proposal and conducting comprehensive testing, but also engaging in a broader dialogue within the community. This dialogue will need to balance maintaining Bitcoin's core principles with the need to innovate and adapt, ensuring the network can continue to thrive and meet the evolving demands of its users.

Conclusion

Rusty's plan to make Bitcoin text great again represents an important step towards enhancing the expressiveness of the Bitcoin network. While there are challenges to overcome, the potential benefits in terms of functionality and innovation are significant. As the Bitcoin developer community continues to evolve and embrace new ideas, proposals like these will be crucial in shaping the future of the network.

The post OP_CAT & Bitcoin Ossification With Blockstream’s Andrew Poelstra first appeared on Investorempires.com.