Before you brace yourselves for an upheaval in the Bitcoin universe prompted by my claim that Bitcoin requires transformation, allow me to clarify my position. My qualifications do not extend to advanced programming or cryptographic prowess. I am an ordinary individual, earning a living in the construction sector, striving for a more profound comprehension of Bitcoin’s essence. So, why advocate for a Bitcoin metamorphosis?

The phrase “Not your keys, not your coins” has echoed in the Bitcoin sphere, advocating for the individual control of private keys rather than entrusting them to centralized entities. Such custodianship compromises the autonomy over one’s funds, generating a counterparty risk, hinging on the trust and security practices of the third party.

The ethos behind “not your keys, not your coins” aligns with broader principles of decentralization and resistance to censorship. It advocates for individual financial sovereignty, reducing reliance on intermediaries, emphasizing personal responsibility, security, and self-sufficiency in an age where technological advancements are often utilized for control.

The concern arises when we realize that, under Bitcoin’s current protocol, self-custody does not scale effectively. Ignoring this reality has far-reaching consequences, as evidenced by the recent BRC-20 minting issue, which resulted in increased transaction costs due to a surge in the base layer fee market. The incident paints a picture of future challenges as the network expands. Imagine this predicament amplifying with 8 billion users, making custodial solutions the sole avenue for integrating new network participants.

Surprisingly, over half of the community perceived this scenario as a success, a dangerous notion as it threatens Bitcoin’s ethos of self-sovereignty and resistance to censorship. It seems that an increase in value (NGU – number go up) might be taking precedence over individual liberty for many.

Whenever scaling issues arise, the notion of Bitcoin scaling in layers is invoked. The base layer can solidify while additional layers accommodate the global population. However, layer two solutions are not a magical remedy; they are dependent on the functionality and limitations of layer one.

Embracing this truth might be intimidating, especially for non-technical individuals. We love Bitcoin, and the idea of change is daunting due to the unknown. We fear the potential risk of Bitcoin’s failure due to any modification. Hence, there’s an inclination towards advocating for base layer ossification, believing it would safeguard Bitcoin.

If you uphold the principle of “not your keys, not your coins” and believe it should be accessible to all network participants, current and future, we must acknowledge Bitcoin’s adaptability before it’s too late. As expressed by Jameson Lopp:

“Bitcoin represents sound money. However, it’s not limited to digital gold. Bitcoin is adaptable money. Unlike gold, it is a technology that can be upgraded. We shouldn’t discard this characteristic. There are aspects of Bitcoin that can be enhanced without compromising its integrity… The propensity of network protocols to solidify implies that changes should be made sooner than later; it’s nearly impossible to coordinate changes once a protocol has reached mainstream adoption.”

And to quote Lopp again

“Solidification is a consequence of growth, not a deliberate decision. We cannot ascertain the moment we’ve crossed the line until proposed changes cease to gain traction. Once we cross this unseen boundary in the future, Bitcoin will solidify as is, making further updates nearly impossible.

“Before this occurs, developers and users need to envision Bitcoin’s ultimate code base. Past debates, like the SegWit fork, show us that Bitcoin users are divided and fervent about several issues, and there’s no universally agreeable answer to this question. This disagreement is partly the reason behind ossification.”

We can’t confirm whether we have already crossed the invisible line towards base-layer ossification. However, until that moment, it is crucial for all users who value Bitcoin for its self-sovereignty, censorship resistance, and potential to dissociate money from the state to keep an open mind towards changes. Actively participate in the developer community’s discussions. Approach these discussions with goodwill. I can vouch for the welcoming nature of the developer community, having attended ChiBitDevs, and their eagerness to help non-technical users understand complex engineering matters.

In the words of Shinobi, consider this: “What if government agencies are counting on your adamant resistance to Bitcoin changes, so that our only practical long-term scaling options become banks they can regulate and control?”

As we await the next block, the clock continues to tick.