Bitcoin doesnt NEED a fork. At…

Bitcoin doesnt NEED a fork. At least not right now.

There are certain future attacks that could be mitigated with a fork, but that also introduce new attacks. Any fork itself can be seen as an attack, in that it can lead to divided consensus and a chain split. This has happened.

There are feature additions, but it is challenging to prove that they are safer than the risk of the fork itself. So the bar is high for those. Something like "simplicity" might have a chance of gaining mind share there.

There are some quality of life improvements, such as for the block size to increase with hardware improvements. While this has its dangers, it also can potentially prevent two other attacks in future, such as disruptive deep reorgs, and also disruptive fee attacks. This surface needs to be mapped out and explained in far greater detail. Possibly over the next 4 years.

Anyone advocating for a fork may be well intentioned, but if that fork is contentious, it can potentially split the chain and that is likely a bigger danger than any percieved gains. Our enemies know this, which is why they agitate for such efforts.

The thing I learnt in the last cycle is that you should be dubious of any fork that is an appeal to authority. And you should be open minded to any fork that is stands on its own merits.