Bitcoin Forking Guide

A critical issue identified is the difficulty of attaining social consensus prior to achieving technical consensus. This challenge stems from a diverse range of ideas concerning the proper execution of covenant mechanisms, which are often tailored to specific envisioned use cases. The diversity in approaches has led to developer and stakeholder frustration, exacerbated by a "memoryless" consensus process where arguments are cyclically presented without tangible progress. The absence of a comprehensive technical archive is highlighted as a significant barrier, limiting the ability to build upon shared experiences, ideas, and frameworks. Current resources, such as some Bitcoin wiki pages, are criticized for their focus on individual opinions rather than offering a holistic view of different proposals and their associated trade-offs and potential applications.

Efforts to address these documentation and consensus-building challenges include the establishment of the Bitcoin Contracting Primitives Working Group and an Optech documentation initiative. These efforts aim to organize public discussions and document covenant proposals, enhancing understanding among community members. However, the need for an objective, well-maintained, and unbiased online archive persists as a crucial gap within the community. Such a resource could significantly aid in overcoming the hurdles to consensus building by providing a central repository of knowledge and facilitating a unified approach to protocol development.

Furthermore, the bcap project sheds light on the importance of establishing social consensus before enacting code changes that reflect these consensus shifts within Bitcoin. The creation of a guide (link) offers insights into navigating the complex landscape of consensus changes in Bitcoin. While not exhaustive, the guide serves as an advisory tool, emphasizing a collaborative effort towards changes that benefit the entire ecosystem. It suggests that proposals should target universally beneficial improvements to smooth the path to consensus. However, it acknowledges the limitations of this approach, recognizing that proposals based on utilitarian principles might struggle to gain widespread support. The guide emphasizes the necessity of detailed work and engagement with the intricacies of proposed changes, positioning itself not as a shortcut but as a roadmap for constructive dialogue and thoughtful consensus building within the decentralized framework of Bitcoin. This approach aims to promote a methodical and inclusive process, prioritizing the collective well-being of the Bitcoin community.