No, BlackRock Won’t Ossify Bitcoin
Follow Aaron on Nostr or X. In his Take from Wednesday, Shinobi argued that the surge of institutional bitcoin adoption will lead to premature ossification of the Bitcoin protocol. While I share his concern to an extent,...
Archive context
Older archive item. Useful for background and entity history, but not a fresh market-moving signal.
In his Take from Wednesday, Shinobi argued that the surge of institutional bitcoin adoption will lead to premature ossification of the Bitcoin protocol. While I share his concern to an extent, I am less convinced this is necessarily true.
Bitcoin is inherently a permissionsless system. For protocol changes specifically, it “just” requires users to upgrade their software. And when it comes to deploying soft forks, it really only needs a majority of miners to upgrade. (This is admittedly a simplification for the sake of brevity, but I’d say it’s still “true enough” to state it this way.)
Miners will for the most part follow economic incentives. If a protocol upgrade makes Bitcoin (say) more scalable or more private, there is actually good reason to think this would make Bitcoin more valuable, which in turn means there is good reason to think miners will activate the upgrade.
Even in an extreme scenario where a soft fork occurs through a user activated soft fork (UASF) that splits the blockchain, and even if in this scenario the institutions prefer the non-upgraded version of the chain (this is the scenario Shinobi is ultimately envisioning), it’s not obvious to me that the non-upgraded chain would “win”.
Just owning lots of bitcoin does not give you a “say” on which side of a chain split is more valuable. Initially, everyone receives coins on both sides. Only if you’re willing to buy or sell these coins (eg.: “dump” coins on one side of the split to get more coins on the other side) does your economic weight matter. But this means you have to take a risk: skin in the game.
Would big institutions really be willing to bet everything they own on the version of the protocol without the upgrade? That’s a big assumption to make.
This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
Why this matters
This bitcoin story adds another data point to the current market tape and is useful when read alongside nearby source coverage.
Original source
Read on Bitcoin MagazineRelated market context
Europol says crypto’s quantum upgrade could take years and urges work to start now
Europol, the EU’s law enforcement agency, is urging the cryptocurrency industry to begin preparing wallet and protocol upgrades fo...
Securitize’s Chongwu Du says tokenized finance will run on a few blockchains, not one
Tokenized finance's reliance on multiple blockchains could enhance resilience and innovation, fostering a more diverse financial e...
Money20/20 USA 2026: How Bitcoin, Stablecoins and AI Are Reshaping the Future of Finance
Bitcoin Magazine Money20/20 USA 2026: How Bitcoin, Stablecoins and AI Are Reshaping the Future of Finance Fintech has moved beyond...
Bitcoin miners escape months of distress as daily revenue surges by 78%
Bitcoin miners are emerging from months of financial pressure as rising BTC prices lift daily industry revenue by 78%. According t...
A $1,000 MetaMask incident could turn Ethereum’s staking queue into a $5 billion traffic jam
MetaMask's precautionary validator exits are turning a roughly $1,000 reward diversion into a test of Ethereum's staking capacity....
StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson says Bitcoin needs a soft fork for quantum resistance
Bitcoin's quantum resistance hinges on timely protocol changes, balancing security upgrades with evolving cryptographic threats. T...