That BTC users do not use their own nodes «is the most critical problem of decentralization.» Ocean's manager was cautious to modifications in the Bitcoin protocol in 2025. At the Mining Disrupt event, held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States, cryptootics interviewed exclusively to Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Core developer and CTO of Ocean Pool, who pointed to crucial themes on the centralization of mining and the centralization of mining. Evolution Perspectives of the Bitcoin Protocol (BTC) in 2025.
The centralization of mining: a real problem for Bitcoin
One of the central points was the growing centralization in Bitcoin mining. Dashjr was emphatic in pointing out that the greatest obstacle to Bitcoin decentralization is not the concentration of computing power (hashrate) in large pools or companies, but The lack of users executing their own complete nodes:
«The most critical problem is that Bitcoin users are not using their own complete nodes.» Luke Dashjr, Cto de Ocean Pool.
For Luke Dashjr, the verification of transactions by own nodes is the fundamental pillar of decentralization and highlighted the basic need for each user Validate the rules of consensus Before accepting bitcoins. Without this, the network is vulnerable, regardless of the advances in mining distribution, according to the Bitcoiner developer.
Luke Dashjr intends to combat the current centralization of BTC mining. Source: YouTube.
Decentralize mining templates
The Ocean manager explained that, although there are initiatives to decentralize mining templates (schemes that determine which transactions are included in a block), The current panorama reveals a more complex reality. When asked about the technical difference between Ocean and other similar projects such as Demand Pool, the developer pointed out, although without deepening, that “it is difficult to compare with something that really does not exist yet. So I really can't talk about what they are doing because there is still nothing there. Ocean really exists. That answer could show that, according to Dashjr's opinion, Ocean would be the pool that bets on a true decentralization. Luke pointed to Ocean's mechanism, who uses his own Datum protocol, to continue his answer: «Bitcoin miners can send their templates directly to the bitcoin network«, A process that described as» essentially the same as solo mining, «unless the rewards are shared among the participants, instead of competing individually by the total prize. Likewise, the developer explained that «the way in which solo mining works, more or less, is executing your own pool server locally with your own complete node making the blocks», so that «when you find the block, it is your complete node that knows it first and send it directly to the network in that way.» That proposal, according to Dashjr, describes Ocean's goal of «Return the creation of blocks to individual miners» So that instead that a few centralized pools have all control, individual miners make their own decisions, which would promote decentralization and autonomy and privacy of individual miners.
Pools with masks: the illusion of diversity according to Luke Dashjr
Dashjr questioned the apparent diversity of mining pools. When asked if the identical templates between different pools were a threat, the developer dismantled the idea with a forceful observation:
«The templates are only the same when they are not different pools.» Luke Dashjr, Cto de Ocean Pool.
According to him, many of the pools that operate under different names are, in fact, a single entity that Use diverse brands to project a decentralization image. «They are putting different names on the same servers,» he explained, suggesting that this practice could be a deliberate attempt to hide their true scale and deceive the community. Although these pools can operate with infrastructure that distribute payments to different miners, Dashjr considers that this distinction is irrelevant in practice. The coincidence in the templates reveals that decisions about which transactions to include in the blocks are not distributed, but concentrated in a few hands.
The MEV is not a threat to Bitcoin, according to Luke Dashjr
Luke Dashjr also referred to the maximum removable value (MEV), a concept linked to the practice in which miners can obtain an additional benefit when reorder or select transactions in a block. The Ocean executive, however, reduced this idea. «It is mainly a fear campaign,» he said, arguing that the economic difference that miners could obtain when optimizing the MEV is minimal, barely «cents,» and does not represent a significant threat.
The Bitcoin protocol in 2025: evolution without trouble
As for the possible modifications of the Bitcoin protocol in 2025, Dashjr adopted a cautious tone. «Changes in the protocol take more than a year,» he said, making it clear that Do not expect important updates this yearunless they have already been scheduled before. For him, Bitcoin's evolution must be preventive, a way to avoid felling against future challenges, but did not identify any improvement as «essential» in the short term. When asked about specific proposals, such as OPCODE OP_CAT, which would facilitate zero knowledge evidence and intelligent contracts in Bitcoin, Dashjr was blunt: «It has no significant use cases that I know»he said, adding that certain actors could be promoting it as a way to control Bitcoin. This distrust, combined with the lack of clear benefits, leads it to anticipate that OPCAT will not prosper in the near future, unless a specific application arises that justifies its adoption. In contrast, other ideas such as Covenants and Zero Knowledge Tests (ZK PROOFS) received a more positive evaluation. Dashjr acknowledged that they have legitimate use cases, highlighting in particular CTV («Check Template Verify» or verification of checking template) as a well -defined proposal that could be activated in the coming years, although he assured that he does not follow these developments closely. Covenants, such as CTV, are mechanisms to restrict how the outputs of a transaction, useful for more complex contracts are spent. Zero knowledge tests, on the other hand, are cryptographic techniques that allow to verify information without revealing it, with potential applications in privacy or scalability.
