-
@ TFTC (News Bot)
2025-05-27 21:01:50Key Takeaways
In this episode, Bitcoin Core veteran James O’Beirne delivers a sharp critique of Bitcoin’s developmental stagnation, attributing it to political dysfunction, post-fork trauma, and resistance within Bitcoin Core to critical upgrades like CheckTemplateVerify (CTV). He argues that while institutional adoption accelerates, internal innovation is being stifled by misplaced controversies—such as the OP_RETURN policy debate—and a bottlenecked governance model. O’Beirne warns that without urgent progress on scaling solutions like CTV, congestion control, and vaulting systems, Bitcoin risks ossifying and becoming vulnerable to institutional capture. Advocating a more adversarial posture, he suggests forking or building alternative clients to pressure progress but remains hopeful, seeing rising momentum for protocol upgrades from developers outside the Core elite.
Best Quotes
“Everybody has mempool derangement syndrome… it’s such a small issue in the grand scheme of challenges Bitcoin is facing.”
“Bitcoin is as much an experiment in technical human organization as it is a pure technology.”
“If we don’t figure out how to scale trustless Bitcoin self-custody, we’re toast. Right now, only about 2.5% of Americans could actually use Bitcoin monthly in a meaningful way.”
“CTV isn’t sexy—it just works. It keeps getting reinvented because it's so useful. At this point, it’s essential.”
“If Core isn’t going to evaluate these proposals, someone has to. Otherwise, we need to build the social justification for forking.”
“Lightning didn’t scale Bitcoin the way we expected. Let’s stop assuming a silver bullet is coming and start building the bridges ourselves.”
“You could onboard someone with just a phone and a vault… and give them more security than most hardware wallets.”
Conclusion
While Bitcoin gains traction with institutions and governments, its internal development is stalling under political inertia and misplaced focus. James O’Beirne urges the community to prioritize impactful upgrades like CTV and CCV, challenge the bottleneck of Bitcoin Core if needed, and recommit to Bitcoin’s foundational principles. This episode underscores the urgent need to bridge technical and social divides to ensure Bitcoin remains a decentralized, censorship-resistant tool for global value transfer.
Timestamps
0:00 - Intro
0:41 - Multi axis issue
5:12 - Core governance
9:41 - Derailing productive discussions
17:05 - Fold & Bitkey
18:32 - CTV
29:24 - Unchained
29:53 - Magnitude of change
41:45 - Covenant proposals
50:16 - CTV benefits
57:56 - Institutional ownership
1:05:26 - Moving forwardTranscript
(00:00) I think I have a somewhat different take than 99% of the people in the discussion. What freaks me out is if you've got Sailor owning half million coins or whatever and Black Rockck owning however many, people forget that Bitcoin is as much an experiment in technical human organization as it is, you know, as a sort of pure technology.
(00:17) The undernowledged reality is I'm actually interested to see if we have like a black swan adoption event from the machines. the risk given the increased scrutiny that things like the strategic Bitcoin reserve introduce there's a shot clock on getting to trustless decentralized value storage technology and I think we really have to be thinking about that combination of physically tired and mentally tired it's also tiresome James it's it's I was looking at that picture today and I was actually going to tweet it absent any caption just because it's
(00:52) a really good Uh yeah, it's a really good epitome of uh of a lot of stuff. But I'm with you, man. I'm tired. It's Friday. Who is it? Is that a just some random Japanese guy? I think it's it's I actually think it's from a documentary about I don't know if it's Africa, but Oh, yes. Yes.
(01:13) It's there's a little bit of a kind of like racy connotation there. Um yeah, the uh it's been long. It was interesting for me. We had Texas Energy Mining Summit here in Austin the beginning of the week. It sort of blended with Bitcoin plus I was over at Bitcoin++ Wednesday and yesterday doing the live desk and obviously topic of conversation is OP return this policy decision and this policy change that that core wants to make and many people are uh angry about and it's just again it's also tiresome.
(01:52) spoke with people on both sides over the two days and I I think I came away more confused than than I entered entered the week like what is the optimal path and somebody who's worked on Bitcoin core worked on Bitcoin core for for many years I've seen you tweeting about it seems like I won't put words in your mouth I'll let you say like what is your perspective on this whole policy debate around op return yeah so in general I think I have a somewhat different take than um 99% of the people in in the discussion which is basically that this
(02:25) is a really stupid discussion um everybody has mempool derangement syndrome like at every layer um and uh what what frustrates me a little bit about the conversation not not to not to uh get like um grumpy right off the bat but it's just it's it's such a small issue in the in the grand scheme of challenges that are being presented to Bitcoin that like spending all this drama on it um is is really a silly use of time and uh kind of emotion, but I can break it down for you.
(03:02) I mean, I think I think like largely the argument is happening on a few layers. Um the change itself technically I'm totally in favor of it. It makes sense. you know, basically the rationale is like, well, you know, um, people want to include exogenous data into the chain. Um, you can't really stop them from doing that.
(03:23) Um and so let's basically minimize the damage by saying hey you know we're going to make it easier for people to actually make use of op return as a data carrier which uh lets us avoid bloat in the UTXO set which is like one of the precious resources we have to take care of for the node.
(03:44) Um, so that's all good and the and the other thing too is that as we've seen with the ordinal stuff is um, you know, data is going to wait make its way into the chain and actually it hurts the whole network when um, there are transactions that most nodes haven't seen yet but they come through a block. Basically that slows down block propagation time.
(04:06) And so the whole idea is if you bring policy closer to the actual consensus rules, closer to the actual transactions that are going to come through and be mined, then you're going to have better network performance. You're going to have lower latency when it comes to actually broadcasting a new block around. So that's like the the sort of technical layer of the discussion.
(04:25) It's it's really a minute non-controversial change if you kind of have fluency with the the technical end of the mempool. Um, but I think there's this this higher layer to the conversation which is sort of a readjudication of spam in Bitcoin. And it's, you know, I think a lot of the the old animal spirits and sentiments are emerging about like, well, we don't like spam.
(04:49) And I think for a lot of people who kind of get lost in the technical details, it's very easy to latch on to the sentiment of I don't like spam. Um and so uh so that makes the sort of ocean knots camp maybe more appealing. Uh so that's yeah that's I guess a summary if you want to jump in anything in particular we can that's what I was saying I came out more confused than I went in.
(05:20) So last week on RHR, hey, I agree. You want policy to be aligned with consensus. Like whether we like it or not, these transactions are getting into blocks. They're non-standard, but they are valid within consensus rules and policy just isn't aligning with that. And like you said, this is disrupting the P2P layer and potentially the fee uh estimation process that that many nodes use, many applications use.
(05:49) And it makes sense to me to align policy with consensus. These things are happening. And if you can make it so Bitcoin full nodes are operating as efficiently and optimally as possible by changing this, it makes sense to me. I think my one like push back was like makes sense to me. However, I think how it was communicated to people and the whole mess with the PR.
(06:12) I think it's I think it's it was it's it's just a tactical error. Like even if this change gets in the the the real benefit of is is not material. You know, nobody was really clamoring for it. um this stuff always, you know, gets the hackles up of everybody who cares at all about, you know, spamming Bitcoin. So, it was a real tactical error.
(06:36) And I think that's that's one place where I mean it's kind of I had a little bit of shot in Freud seeing it because I'm fairly critical of core as a project along you know a variety of axes at this point and it was just kind of a demonstration of the the disconnection and kind of ineptitude of um publicity management kind of on on their end.
(06:58) Um, and so like there's part of me that enjoys seeing that because I I'm kind of convinced that that group has a lot less efficacy than they have credibility. And so to to see that kind of catch up was was interesting. The uh let's dive into that like what you said multiple axes you have a problem. I think we've throughout the years like we've been discussing the issues that Bitcoin like yourself particularly as a Bitcoin core developer for many years trying to get things through not only in the context of the way core works from a governance
(07:35) structure but just the way Bitcoin works as a distributed open source protocol like trying to get changes in and I will say like