Adam Back proposed privacy enhancements to Bitcoin, but Bitcoin Core developers wouldn't implement them. Back responded with a different idea: sidechains. Back discussed his thinking during an interv
Adam Back proposed privacy enhancements to Bitcoin, but Bitcoin Core developers wouldn't implement them. Back responded with a different idea: sidechains.
Back discussed his thinking during an interview with Epicenter Bitcoin, where host Brian Fabian Crain pressed him on how the Bitcoin development community would handle controversial changes if consensus breaks down. The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal process served the network well in the past, Back acknowledged, but it has limits. He pointed to sidechains as a potential solution.
Back came from an electronic cash and cryptography background and saw multiple ways to strengthen Bitcoin's fungibility and privacy. When he approached Bitcoin Core developers, they were interested in the features but found implementation too difficult and risky. The changes would require extensive code modifications.
"What I was asking for was relatively complicated and somewhat high-risk because of the amount of code involved," Back said. Core maintained a conservative approach because the base protocol needed to remain stable. Building on an unstable foundation invites disaster. Back compared the protocol to TCP/IP, a foundational layer that other systems rely on.
Bitcoin Core developers protect the protocol for valid reasons. A flawed change could break the network and destroy billions in user assets overnight. This caution has frustrated Back and others who want Bitcoin to advance.
Back proposed sidechains as a way forward. Instead of fighting for changes within Core, developers could build on separate blockchains without launching new altcoins. "It's a way for different people to work on different features independently and without them having to be in Bitcoin Core," Back said. Multiple teams could experiment in parallel, testing features without needing approval from the broader developer community.
The block size debate demonstrated where sidechains could help. If sidechains had existed earlier, Back suggested, someone could have created a higher-capacity sidechain rather than pushing to alter the block size limit. Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn put forward BIP 101 to increase the limit, a proposal that sparked the Bitcoin XT fork. A mature sidechain framework might have prevented the crisis.
Nobody has built out sidechains yet. But Back believes that once they exist, they could allow Bitcoin to adapt without placing developers in impossible positions.
