I remember when I was doing a podcast with the micro strategy boss before, he discussed his extremely conservative attitude towards updating the Bitcoin protocol. Thinking back to the big and small block wars of the past, today we can see that small blocks have undoubtedly won, and Bitcoin has also won. But looking at it from another perspective, more than a decade has passed, and the biggest or even only consensus in this industry is still the unchanged Bitcoin, with no progress or innovation that can even approach the Bitcoin of more than a decade ago. Michael Saylor： Bitcoin is also the most stable, and its protocol has hardly changed. For example, Ethereum has a 10-year roadmap with over 40 update plans listed, while Bitcoin does not have a so-called 'roadmap' at all. Bitcoin has already been completed, and it was largely established over a decade ago. It can be said that Bitcoin was basically completed more than 10 years ago, even when it was born on January 3, 2009. An ideal protocol should be widely distributed, mathematically complete, logically complete, and gain global consensus. Currently, the only asset globally recognized as logically complete is Bitcoin. The community has been engaged in heated discussions regarding the need to make changes to the Bitcoin protocol. I personally tend to take a relatively conservative stance. I believe that we should be extremely cautious and thoughtful when making any changes. Most protocol adjustments or proposals may be "iatrogenic" - that is, they may cause more harm than good. This situation is similar to the formulation of laws. People always try to regulate the economy through regulations, so thousands of pages of laws have been enacted in the hope of making the market more efficient. But in the end, it turns out that if you implement millions of rent control regulations, the real estate market will be disrupted and renting will become even more difficult. Politicians and regulators always come up with various new ideas, but 99.9999% of proposals end up being bad. So, we should be highly skeptical about these changes. Of course, occasionally necessary new ideas may arise, and we can carefully consider them at that time. If there is a broad consensus in the entire community, I will support it. But in most cases, we don't need massive protocol upgrades. Many new proposals are usually only intended to benefit a second layer solution or a third layer protocol, but they can harm the interests of the entire Bitcoin community. Therefore, I believe that we should maintain an extremely conservative, cautious, and skeptical attitude towards protocol changes. To be honest, most of the proposals seem more like a form of 'cancer', causing more harm than good to the Bitcoin ecosystem. the original https://mp.weixin. (qq.com)/s/vqUEIFIqh-wGLTbsHKWAvw