Author: Oliver, Mars Finance
In the crypto world, Ethereum and its ecosystem are always like an enthusiastic teenager, constantly attracting market attention with novel DeFi Lego sets and Non-Fungible Token artworks. In comparison, BTC is more like a silent, deep-sea elder. It rarely changes, but every tiny movement is enough to trigger a profound earthquake in the entire industry. Since the major upgrade called "Taproot" in 2021, this elder enjoyed years of tranquility. However, beneath the calm surface, an undercurrent about its future is surging, and the one stirring this spring water is a technical proposal numbered BIP-119.
The core of this proposal is an ancient and powerful magic called "Covenants". It is expected to reach consensus by the end of the year, but the debate surrounding it has long transcended the code itself, evolving into a philosophical debate about the soul and future of BTC. This is not merely a technical route dispute, but more like a collective interrogation of BTC's identity: Should it become a perpetual digital gold, or a continuously evolving financial operating system?
[The rest of the translation follows the same professional and accurate approach, maintaining the original structure and meaning while translating to English.]Fast forward to 2025, the promoters of BIP-119 have clearly learned their lessons, making a comeback with a more humble attitude and a more mature strategy. In June this year, an open letter signed by 66 prominent developers and institutional representatives (including Jameson Lopp and custody giant Anchorage) called on the community to re-examine BIP-119. This time, they are not fighting alone but have formed a "builders alliance". More cleverly, they have bundled BIP-119 with another less controversial and complementary proposal, BIP-348. This is undoubtedly a sophisticated political move that forces opponents to weigh the pros and cons: would rejecting BIP-119 also mean giving up another beneficial upgrade?
Regardless of BIP-119's ultimate fate, this prolonged debate has been extremely valuable. It serves as a mirror, clearly reflecting the complexity, challenges, and evolution of Bitcoin's decentralized governance. It compels every participant to contemplate the sacred balance point between efficiency and security, evolution and stability, pragmatism and idealism.
Ultimately, Bitcoin's future may not depend on the activation of a single opcode, but on whether this community composed of millions of "invisible hands" can find the correct route to the stars through intense collisions and difficult compromises. This soul-searching about "contracts" continues, and each of us is a witness to this great social experiment.
