Bitcoin Forum

Put another way, if you could go back in time to before BTC was launched and suggest changes to the original code to Satoshi Nakamoto, what would you suggest?

...

1)  Block size.  Satoshi could have probably anticipated this, and he (or the team) should have written some code allowing an easy expansion through time...  Whatever developers "win" the block size tangle, please think ahead guys!

2)  Limited acceptance by merchants (the principal thing retarding BTC growth IMO).  I do not know how to fix this one.  Time and customer demand?


EDIT:

3)  It is HARD to buy Bitcoin, especially quietly.

Start off with smaller units. I know that's uncool but that's what human psychology is equipped to deal with. Put in some widget to kill off mining pools. Know how it was gonna scale. Get a professional PR agency.

Mining pools and mega farms..

I think the code should have something to disincentivise the centralization of mining. I don't think rules that disallow it would be the answer. More like built in conditions that the free market will turn into decentralization rather than encourage centralization as it is.

So why doesn't someone just create a new Bitcoin and just fix those things?

i would change block size no matter what the situations would be..

Why?

Wrong. This is not a fix and makes no sense from a technical perspective. If anything it could kill Bitcoin (if there were no infrastructural improvements).

This is not a flaw in Bitcoin.

Neither is this.

This makes sense. Centralization is indeed a problem, albeit nobody has a real solution for this. Incentives to run nodes would be also nice in order to relive the costs and promote decentralization.

Read the first part of my post.

Because they can't. Let me try to explain this somehow; people that don't have the sufficient knowledge and technical skills think that building a spaceship (where spaceship = solutions to all inherent problems that Bitcoin has) is as 'easy' as stacking a few blocks on-top of each other.

There are hundreds of people creating new coins. No one gives a shit about them. Why start from scratch and why should you trust it? In case you hadn't read anywhere else in the forum lately, attempting to change bitcoin itself seems to upset a lot of people.

This is not the reason for which people ignore them. Most of these coins are either designed very poorly, offer nothing new, used to pump & dump, used to promote malware (i.e. they're trash-coins). Barely any of them have any features that would be worth looking into and possibly implementing into Bitcoin. You don't need to trust anyone if you can analyze the code; Bitcoin is trust-less and so is any fork of it that does not have malicious/weak code.

have you seen the reaction from the bitcoin community to any big changes that are required....?  can you imagine the reaction to suggesting a new bitcoin, plus people have to much invested in this bitcoin.  Bitcoin is open source by the way so anyone can suggest changes.....lol    "good luck with that"

To make it anonymous, rather than pseudo-anonymous.

c'mon it's already happening. do not dream of returning to the past, there is no time machine
satoshi Nakamoto. already made bitcoin very well, we have an appreciation that

I'll consider the blockchain size. I might tried to get an alternate way for the blockchain size. But i'm not a dev, so i really didn't get what's the alternative way

If someone create a new bitcoin, it'll be an Altcoin.

Take out all the irrelevant text message capabilities. They fill up blocks with rubbish, and nobody is going to take a money transfer service seriously if it is full of dog obituaries and wedding reports.

This. Maybe it is not a concern right now but it will be soon. Don't think Satoshi imagined that mining will become like this. But I don't think there is a solution to this now.

not that easy. bitcoin was at the heart of all users. many coins are to be like bitcoin, there is even more sophisticated, but they can never compete with bitcoin,

Yes thats true as its the leader for the tech, others can just adopt it. I don't think much fault about bitcoin. It has got its existence and has been running long. The programming behind the technology feels to be difficult. One who have interest in writing codes its not a big deal. This can also be overcome by a a person if he has willingness to learn more about bitcoin

the biggest faults is that bitcoin is less decentralized than what it was at the beginning, for mining maybe to avoid this, satoshi would have had to think about a algo change after each halving, to reduce the mining centralization

so asic would be less powerful and more gpu oriented farm would have emerge

also leaving 32mb block size, was not that catastrophic for today working, there is no real argument to sustain these all fud

i am just amateur bitcoin,not an expert and just know little thing about bitcoin,so if you ask me like that,i can't suggest anything to Satoshi Nakamoto,bitcoin is perfect for me,even some transaction delay so long,i think its not happen many time.

one big problem that i have with bitcoin is difficulty, which will lead to this situation that i as an individual with a pc at home (no extra mining equipment) can not mine bitcoin, so mining becomes a business that a few (mining farms) can only do it.

can't say if it is all a bad thing, but i wished that mining of the cryptocurrency that is supposed to be decentralized could be done by anybody who wanted to do so.

Your post contradicts itself. You are talking about mining at home where you earn money; you can forget about that. You can mine at your home with whatever you want, but you won't be earning money. There's a huge difference and this can't be prevented either.

Satoshi is gone and thus irrelevant at this point in time. There are no transaction delays; there are only confirmation delays because people don't include the proper fees.

That wouldn't be a censorship-free and decentralized system then.

What are these proper fees? Because clearly default fee amount set by the wallet is often not enough? How a person should now that fee is "good", that the person is not overpaying nor underpaying?

10k+ satoshi is a proper fee, there are some that use 1k or below and zero fee, i admit i have used less than 10k satoshi many times

the biggest fault of bitcoin right now is the bitcoin development team. they can not even reach a consensus among themselves which is tearing bitcoin into two groups and scaring everybody for its future.

Bitcoin is lacking capacity (remove Blockstream guys and let it grow)
Bitcoin is lacking instant transactions (I know it's hard to make but market really wants it)
Bitcoin is lacking anonimity (no one even talks about it)

Wrong. Stop posting nonsense.
Transactions are near instant. Confirmation times aren't; you've mixed those two up.
A fully anonymous coin would most likely be labeled illegal pretty much anywhere. Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous; besides we might see confidential transactions one day.

This is not a flaw inherent to Bitcoin. Bitcoin works without a development team. Besides, if you exclude Gavin and Garzik there is consensus (a roadmap has been signed).

Lauda

Thank you for correcting my remarks (last page).  And for correcting various other comments since.

But, what I was really trying to communicate was the problems I have in the who Bitcoin Ecosystem, things we would like to see made better.  Sure, developer's coding issues are different than other parts of the Ecosystem, but it all has to work fairly seamlessly in order for Bitcoin to gain Major League acceptance.

I hope that the various problems re block size (including the "next time" the issue comes up) get resolved through a professional consensus.  Acrimony about "hard forks" and other scary-sounding matters will NOT help normal people look with favor on Bitcoin.

My opinion only, I am not a programmer.

Yes, I agree that some incentive for nodes would be nice. I would run a node if so. Even just 1% of TX fees directed to nodes would be nice.


What if there was a way to make bitcoin's code aware of mining data such as in this pie chart..
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ghash.io-closer-to-51.png
And then vary difficulty based on who is connected and how much hash they are putting on to where connections of lesser hash would be hashing on a smaller difficulty then the mega hash connections. Like assign the greatest hash difficulty + 10% and the smallest hash difficulty -10%. To where if say actual difficulty was "find a hash with value less than 10" assign the greatest hash connection "must be less than 9" and the least hash connection "must be less than 11" and assign every hashing connection in the middle between least and greatest a difficulty somewhere in the middle..

hash=100=less than 9
hash=75=less than 9.5
hash=50=less than 10
hash=25 less than 10.5
hash=1= less than 11

Where hash=100 is the greatest hash connection and hash=1 is the least hashing connection.
This could be done linearly or exponentially or variably based on the difference between the least and greatest hashing connection and the solved block would be accepted based on difficulty X (connection hash % of max/min) and could even be weighted based on the % of miners that fall into a certin ange between least and greatest. Give an advantage of lower difficulty to connections with less hash power to bust up the mining monopolies.

Ofcourse I have no idea if something like this is possible because I really don't know what I'm talking about but I think it would be good to find a way to put the mining monopolies at a disadvantage VS the more decentralized miners.

I also think that this must not be done with rules or laws but rather in a way that provides incentives based on the code so the free market will sort it out.



Took me a while to find this post again..

I like that post a lot and think it is something that should really be thought about.

I don't know. I wish I was a genius and understood all the code but I don't. I probably barely understand the whole concept.

Limited acceptance -> fix by telling them about Bitcoin , educating them.
Long transaction confirmation time -> really bad, you cant buy physical goods fast because of this, no idea how to fix though.

Exactly confirmation time is the major issue with bitcoins, I think bitcoin core team should work on it and make it more fast as it is very time consuming and irritating sometimes, and bitcoin is not that popular in many countries.

What's so bad about huge mining pools?

You're welcome. I'll keep at it, however it is obvious that some of these 'users' are only posting because of their signatures. They are choosing to ignore what was already posted and/or corrected.

I think that OP was supposed to be 'flaws inherent to Bitcoin' (as in design, code, features), not flaws revolving around its ecosystem.

There will never be a solution if we continue with just increasing the block size (or this being our primary objective). This is why contentious HF's like Classic don't really solve anything but delay the debate a bit.

Yes. Anything would be good IMO; way better than nothing.

Not a Bitcoin flaw.

You don't need to wait for a confirmation to buy something. It should be okay to accept zero confirmation transactions for goods of lower value, especially if there is trust between the buyer and seller.

With enough hashrate they are able to control/attack the network.

Why would miner's use their hashrate to attack the network? Wouldn't that make their coins worth much less?

i know that it is an strange thing to say. but what is the point of mining with no reward. mining is going to need electricity so it will cost me. and i am not even looking for a big reward (profit), even a small amount which could cover the electricity cost. this way mining would not be centralized by mining farms.

besides if i want to support bitcoin and blockchain i would run a full node, not mining without reward.

this is maybe silly suggestion,i just suggest to Nakamoto for create bitcoin with faster transaction and confirmation,so i feel use cash money,with per second transaction and confirmation,is that immpossible? :D