According to @AltcoinDaily, Satoshi Nakamoto said the Bitcoin core design was set in stone after version 0.1, highlighting long-term protocol stability. Source: https://twitter.com/AltcoinDaily/status/2012620451663458502 For traders, this aligns with Bitcoin’s practice of making consensus changes cautiously via backward-compatible soft forks, limiting disruptive hard-fork risk. Source: https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/soft-fork/ Predictable issuance mechanics remain intact, including a hard cap of 21 million BTC and block subsidy halvings roughly every 210,000 blocks (about four years). Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply; https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Halving

According to @deanmlittle, introducing versioned bytecode in blockchain protocols could lead to significant technical debt and ongoing vulnerabilities, as it creates a deeper moat for recurring bugs. He suggests a single fork to support upstream eBPF and warns that repeated changes may impact protocol stability, which is critical information for traders assessing network security and reliability risks. Source: @deanmlittle

According to VitalikButerin, the Ethereum community should not consider forking in response to Layer 2 bugs. Instead, forks should address bugs within the core Ethereum protocol. Buterin suggests that the Ethereum protocol could eventually incorporate ZK EVM verifiers as part of the 'native rollups' concept. Such an approach would require a robust combination of multi-provers and formal verification to minimize the future need for forks, directly impacting trading strategies by ensuring greater protocol stability and security.