Secret takeaways:
-
Bitcoin develops on 2 clocks: sluggish, consensus-driven modifications at the base layer and quick experimentation at the edges.
-
Significant upgrades (such as Taproot) get here through careful soft forks after long evaluation.
-
Quick shifts such as Lightning payments and Ordinals take place without altering Bitcoin’s core guidelines, which is why headings move quicker than the L1.
-
The “50-year” line is a hint to take a look at where modification happens, whether in the core procedure or at the edge, before evaluating whether Bitcoin has actually genuinely altered.
On November 10, 2025, Ripple chief innovation officer David Schwartz published a deadpan line on X: “Bitcoin is not the exact same now as it was 50 years back.”
The gag works since Bitcoin (BTC) introduced in 2009, so the “50 years” is certainly tongue-in-cheek, however it landed since it indicated a larger reality about how individuals discuss Bitcoin’s advancement.
Schwartz’s quip can be found in a thread arguing that “1 BTC = 1 BTC” which volatility exists in fiat terms, not in Bitcoin’s own system of account. This framing typically fuels absolutist takes about whether Bitcoin modifications at all.
Did you understand? Rajat Soni, a critic of XRP ( XRP), is a CFA charterholder and a Bitcoin-focused financing analyst active on X.
The joke exposes the timescale confusion
Schwartz’s line works since it highlights an inequality in how individuals think of time in crypto.
Headings make it feel as if Bitcoin modifications overnight, however the structures it bases on were constructed over years:
-
Public-key cryptography (Diffie-Hellman, 1976)
-
Merkle trees (1979 )
-
Proof-of-work precursors such as Hashcash (1997 and 2002)
-
Digital-cash sketches such as Wei Dai’s B-money (1998 ).
Bitcoin’s 2008 style pulled years of cryptographic work into a single, functional system. As soon as a procedure with genuine worth reaches scale, modification slows since coordination expenses increase dramatically. Scientists and contractors now describe this vibrant as “procedure ossification.”
That sluggish speed can appear like absolutely nothing is altering at all, however that is not the case. A practical method to think of it is the Lindy impact, which states that the longer a non-perishable innovation has actually endured, the longer it is most likely to make it through. This is why enduring foundation such as public-key cryptography and hash trees continue to support more recent systems. However the Lindy impact is just a heuristic, not a guarantee. It explains survival, not inevitability.
So, when you zoom out, the joke is a tip that Bitcoin’s advancement works on 2 various paces: the decades-long family tree of its core active ingredients and the faster cycles we see in today’s news.
Did you understand? Segregated Witness (Bitcoin Enhancement Proposition 141) triggered on Aug. 24, 2017, repairing deal malleability and making it possible for capability and Lightning enhancements.
What modifications at Bitcoin’s core (and how)
At the base layer, Bitcoin does alter, however gradually and just with broad contract.
The majority of upgrades are soft forks, which tighten up the guidelines that nodes impose. Soft forks develop coordination danger in between various variations of the software application. To decrease interruption, the neighborhood has actually invested years improving activation techniques such as BIP-9 and BIP-8 variation bits.
In practice, a modification moves from conversation and requirements to screening and, if there is clear assistance, an activation window where miners and financial nodes signal preparedness.
Taproot is the clearest current example. Proposed years previously and triggered in November 2021, it included Schnorr signatures and a brand-new output type that enhances effectiveness and personal privacy without breaking existing guidelines.
The course from concept to activation needed substantial evaluation and a miner signaling duration before the guidelines in fact turned on. It reveals that upgrades do get here, however just after client consensus-building.
Today’s arguments, such as reenabling “OP_CAT” or presenting “OP_CTV” (BIP-119), follow the exact same pattern: incremental programmability propositions going through public research study, danger analysis and social evaluation before any activation can even be thought about.
The procedure is as much about coordination amongst maintainers, customers, miners and users as it has to do with code.
Did you understand? Bitcoin Script is purposefully not Turing-complete, which restricts intricacy to keep recognition foreseeable and safe for all nodes.
Where fast modification takes place
The speed speeds up when you move far from Bitcoin’s base layer.
Payment channels move deals offchain, path them over a mesh and touch the layer 1 just as a backstop. This is why the Lightning Network repeats far faster than agreement modifications. Its core mechanics, consisting of hashed timelock agreements and more recent techniques, such as point timelock agreements (PTLCs), let worth relocation throughout intermediaries without trust.
PTLCs change hash-based tricks with elliptic-curve points, providing channels much better personal privacy, more versatile routing and the capability to divide payments throughout several courses. Since these enhancements reside in executions instead of the base procedure, they can develop without a tough agreement vote.
Ordinals and engravings reveal the exact same fast-edge dynamic from another angle: brand-new habits emerging by utilizing existing guidelines. Casey Rodarmor’s plan numbers satoshis and connects information to them through Taproot-era scripting, developing antiques without modifying Bitcoin’s agreement. This is why the phenomenon might blow up culturally, while the base procedure stayed the same.
Both examples highlight the split pace the joke indicate: Layer twos and client-side systems can include functions, UX enhancements and even brand-new markets at high speed, while the base layer modifications seldom and intentionally. Headings tend to follow the edge, such as Lightning upgrades or engraving waves, while the chain’s core advances in thoroughly staged actions.
The much deeper lesson
Schwartz’s “50-year Bitcoin” line sticks since it compresses how crypto truly develops into a single joke: a sluggish, conservative core that seldom modifications and a quickly, innovative edge that does.
The sluggish core is by style. As soon as a financial procedure has billions at stake, upgrades move just after prolonged evaluation and broad social agreement, a vibrant commonly gone over as procedure ossification.
Yet sluggish is not the like stuck. Concrete courses for modification exist, such as the soft-fork track for brand-new opcodes like “OP_CAT” and “OP_CTV,” which might broaden Bitcoin’s deal programmability. These follow multi-quarter or multi-year timelines instead of news cycles.
On the other hand, brand-new habits can blow up at the edges without touching agreement. Ordinals and engravings did precisely that by numbering satoshis and connecting information utilizing guidelines currently in location.
Forget the years. Consider the remark as a decoder. If a claim about Bitcoin “altering” does not define where (base layer or edge) and how (agreement upgrade or emerging usage), it is missing out on the point the joke highlighted.