Bitcoin is a protocol, not a specific code

So far, most mining pools around the world have started to use the NYA mark to support the New York Consensus, and more than 80% of the computing power in the entire network has chosen to support the New York Consensus segwit2x solution. The community has established a new Bitcoin mailing discussion group Bitcoin-NG, which was also established with the help of Jeff. With the efforts of the community, the New York Consensus is moving forward step by step, but the core development team still does not give up and spreads some rumors in the community to attack the New York Consensus and hinder the implementation of the New York Consensus.

The Core development team accused the New York Consensus segwit2x plan of being too hasty and treating Bitcoin expansion as a joke. The combination of soft fork segregated verification and hard fork 2M is very stupid and bad, impossible to implement, and the code is unreliable. They even hope to hinder the implementation of the New York Consensus through the BIP148 plan to split Bitcoin. Their sinister intentions can be imagined.

Some members of the Bitcoin community said that BIP148 is a conspiracy, and the ultimate goal is to put pressure on the coders of the New York Consensus by splitting Bitcoin. In order to deal with the threat posed by BIP148 to the community, the domestic community once again reiterated its support for the New York Consensus and brought forward the implementation schedule of the New York Consensus. This is also a very risky behavior. Once a problem occurs, the core development team will make a big fuss about it, highlighting the stability of their own solutions and their ability to write code, and forcing the community to accept the core development team's solution.

In addition, when the situation was hopeless, some supporters of the core development team were unwilling to accept defeat and shamelessly deified the core development team's ability to write code, claiming that the core development team was irreplaceable, that their ability to write code was the strongest, and that it was the most secure and stable.

Of course, the core development team has always controlled the Bitcoin code base and has been responsible for the development of Bitcoin, making an indelible contribution to the development of Bitcoin. We have to acknowledge the core development team's ability to write code, and there is no doubt about the security and stability of the core development team's code. However, this does not mean that the core development team is irreplaceable, and that technical advantages cannot be the decisive factor in determining the future of Bitcoin.

However, Bitcoin is a protocol, not a specific code. Bitcoin expansion is essentially an upgrade of a software system. Bitcoin expansion should prioritize the protocol, not the code. The code serves the protocol, not changes it.

Regarding Bitcoin expansion, the community needs to do the following:

Step 1: Bitcoin developers or other community members provide directions for expansion;

The second step is to decide the specific expansion direction through community discussion and network miners’ voting;

The third step is for Bitcoin developers to provide specific expansion plans;

The fourth step is to decide on the specific plan through community discussion and network miners’ voting;

In the fifth step, Bitcoin developers are responsible for the research and development of the solution.

The sixth step is for the community to deploy and upgrade the Bitcoin system based on the progress of development.

Simply put, the expansion of Bitcoin first determines the expansion direction, followed by the design of the code. The design of the code is determined by the expansion direction, and the design of the code cannot change the expansion direction of Bitcoin in the community consensus. No matter how perfect an expansion plan is, how mature the technology is, and how strong the developer's coding ability is, it should not and cannot change the expansion direction of Bitcoin in the community consensus.