Phân tích Tweet theo thời gian thực bằng AI
Nhịp đập thị trường

🚨 Could BlackRock take over Bitcoin development? Who are the developers of Bitcoin #Bitcoin? Does #BlackRock or Strategy have a plan to control the network? And does the threat of quantum computing present a gateway to change the rules of the game? We will discuss the idea with a calm research based on technical and legal reality. https://t.co/OlMT4Ubbid

We know there is a limited number of core developers leading the development of Bitcoin Core. It is often said they are “five”, but the picture is more nuanced. Today we will discuss three points: 1) Who are the actual Bitcoin developers? 5) Can a company like BlackRock take over network development, especially under the pretext of quantum risk? 3) Does Strategy have a plan to control Bitcoin in the future? Let's separate the idea… from reality.

Bitcoin development is carried out through an open-source project called Bitcoin Core. There are no “five owners” of the network. Instead, there is a group of developers with the authority to merge updates into the official repository. Historically notable names include: ◾️ Wladimir van der Laan was the main maintainer of the code for years until his resignation. ◾️ Pieter Wuille, a prominent technical contributor, helped with SegWit and Taproot. ◾️ Marco Falke, responsible for code maintenance and architecture. ◾️ Michael Ford (fanquake) took over maintenance after Wladimir stepped down. But the important points: 🔹 Bitcoin has no board of directors. 🔹 An update cannot be forced unless it is accepted by operators and miners. The code can be proposed… but the network decides.

Is quantum risk a gateway to control? Quantum computing is sometimes presented as a potential threat to the cryptography used in Bitcoin, especially the ECDSA algorithms. So far: ◾️ There are no quantum computers capable of practically breaking Bitcoin keys. ◾️ The technical community is discussing future solutions such as quantum‑resistant signatures. The essential point: ▫️ If a real threat emerges, the update would come via an open‑source proposal and community approval. ▫️ There is no mechanism that allows any company to say: We will take over development now.

#BlackRock manages the largest instant Bitcoin ETF through the #IBIT fund. But: ◾️ Holding large amounts of Bitcoin does not mean controlling the protocol. ◾️ Running a node does not grant central authority. ◾️ Even if it funds developers, the code remains open source and can be rejected. Acquisition would require: ◾️ Control of the majority of miners ◾️ Control of the majority of nodes ◾️ Imposing code not approved by the community Theoretically this is only possible if the network accepts it. It is a scenario extremely complex politically and technically.

Strategy holds one of the largest institutional Bitcoin reserves led by Michael Saylor. Its strategy is clear: ◾️ Buy Bitcoin ◾️ Hold for the long term ◾️ Use it as a reserve asset But holding a large proportion does not mean: ◾️ The ability to modify the code ◾️ Or to impose changes to consensus rules Bitcoin does not operate like a stock system. There is no voting based on coin quantity.

The idea that BlackRock might seize Bitcoin development because of a quantum threat looks attractive theoretically… but it is weak in practice. If quantum risk becomes real, it will drive a collective upgrade, not a handover of keys to a single company. As for Strategy, it competes in ownership, not the protocol. The competition here is about: Who holds more? Not who controls the rules.

Theoretically… any entity can try to influence through: ◾️ Funding ◾️ Regulatory pressure ◾️ Political influence But full control over Bitcoin development requires acceptance from a globally distributed community. If a party tries to enforce a radical change? The likely outcome is: ◾️ A hard fork. ◾️ A new version, and a split in the network. History has shown the community is ready to split rather than submit.