Bitcoin Forum

Let's all pretend to be a developer for today, and I have a question for you all.

If you are to add 1 thing to Bitcoin what will it be? And also if you are to remove just one thing from Bitcoin what will it be?

If possible and a proposal accepted to not let the memepool to be higher than 10 sat/vbyte and almost all the time staying at 1 sat/vbyte. This would be what I will first prefer to do, making bitcoin transaction fee to the low almost all the time. This should be done in a way that those bitcoin tokens will not even affect it.

We are satisfied with all the features Bitcoin has and we certainly feel comfortable using Bitcoin, so there is nothing to change to Bitcoin. We can accept bitcoin as it is. What has sometimes caused problems with Bitcoin for some time is its high transaction fees. Sometimes trading in Bitcoin becomes a difficult matter due to its extra transaction fees but apart from all this Bitcoin is definitely complete. If there was a problem with Bitcoin or if some of it had to be removed then there wouldn't be so many people around the world using Bitcoin or the popularity of Bitcoin would not have increased over time. Bitcoin is growing in popularity and will continue to grow in the future so if we are developers then we don't need to remove anything from Bitcoin or add anything new to Bitcoin.

I will add a demo system where users can run a node and play. This will be purely for educational purposes so those who for any reason cannot run a node will be able to learn how it works without having to download the entire chain. This will bring bitcoin closer to home and show people that it is not too complicated or at least all of it is not.
The goal will be to encourage more users to take the step and run their own nodes, contributing to how decentralized the network is.

That is what I will do on the side, as the main course, I will create a fully decentralized system that is as immune to regulation as bitcoin is. This will replace other services that are being dominated by centralization like exchanges and mixers. This makes it much easier to stay private and not have to choose between decentralization and efficient service.

I know this is not adding anything to Bitcoin directly, but that is because there is mighty little one can add, all we are left with is to create efficient, censorship resistant channels and we are not doing so well now.

Taking away the persistent increase fees associated with bitcoin network, making the source code impossible for possible spammers who send in junks just to conggest the network, we have experienced enough attack on the bitcoin meme pool and it's time to free up and making it impossible for future attacks.


Most times we are really afraid of possible bull market because of the associated reality of high fees and conggested network.

Perhaps we are on an imaginative situation here but I would love my desire to be true for bitcoin including what other privacy lovers would want to add.

On a personal level I would want bitcoin to be as more decentralised more than it is today, monero is more decentralised than bitcoin but if I was to be a developer I would write a script to make the bitcoin network more decentralised than monero that I know of.

If there where to be more option, I would add this, I would develop bitcoin in a way that those tokens like ordinals that cause problems of congestion in the bitcoin network would never get into bitcoin network.

Would be adding the Mimblewimble look alike protocol to increase user privacy, but I doubt if the community would even approve   ;D. As for the remover, would be wiping out ordinals and anything that relates to it. Tired of experiencing regular high TX fee caused by congestion. :-\

Or, for example, tokens with expensive transactions can occupy only 33% of the block, the other 2/3 reserved for regular transactions

I want to add a feature to delete previous history transaction, so if I send from A address to B address, people will not know if B address received from A address. This is important in order to make Bitcoin become fungible, most people especially centralized exchanges always look Bitcoin as non fungible.

I also want to add a feature that whenever we see an address from someone, let's say it's an address in legacy format (start with 1) we can know the segwit format, native segwit format or taproot format, without need they to post their native segwit format. This is important when you want to send Bitcoin to someone or site that still in legacy format, but you want to reduce the fees.

Bitcoin is OK the way it was made, but base on the fact we keep having occurring high transaction fees, Therefor in this case what I would like to add to Bitcoin to try to improve it is that, I make Bitcoin in such a way we can use it to literally Buy almost anything because, That making it transaction fees becomes almost zero.

The only thing I care about is the fees. So, I could change anything; I would remove those BRC-20 ordinals things. But I guess there is a lot of opposition. These recent developments are increasing the use case of Bitcoin, and these protocols have a lot of transactions every day. Miners are making money from those transactions. So, If I could set the fee limit, I Would set it lower than 20 sat/vb and see how it works. I do not have problems with the Runes and the BRC-20 tokens as long as they do not bother the mempool and the fees.

I would get much into the technical stuff but look at the paid and expectations from a layman's point of view and hence if provided with an opportunity to be developer I would like to figure out a way to cap the transaction fees at a certain limit which would be capped at certain USD instead of being charged in Bitcoin, also I would try to improve the speed of transaction for Bitcoin transaction. Hence speed is something which I would like to add nd huge transactions fees are something which I want to remove.

I will like the issue of transaction inputs to be addressed and how such could be consolidated in such a way that everything will be the best interest of the bitcoin users, and also, the way whereby the transaction fee will not be a challenge anymore with or without the influence of inscribed ordinance, lastly, I will like the issue of mixers be addressed and seen ad not a means of harbouring financial fraudulencies, but a go after privacy for every bitcoin users, all these will make the bitcoin network more suitable for use wjen we are having less challenges onbthe network.

It's hard to imagine being a developer when you don't know how developers work, and what they can actually achieve, especially with Bitcoin consensus mechanism. I think I'd be interested in tackling the issue of fee spikes by creating something that perhaps doesn't ban Ordinals and other similar things but greatly discourages them. That would uphold the freedom Bitcoin stands for, while also helping to solve the issue. However, I don't know if it's technically doable and how.

I am not a developer myself so I wouldn’t know specifically what to add but whatever could fix the scalability issues and make transaction fees much accessible for the rest of us that would be nice.
With scalability issues being mentioned, I’d probably remove ordinals.

It definitely only contributes to already growing issue of bitcoin. At some point we have to do something about its issues and face the inevitable. We will soon really feel the consequences of these and if we do not act now, bitcoin will be not accessible nor useable at all.

In a short term this looks to me as a very good proposal but on a long term basis this proposal might have to be revised again because after mining might have ended then the only incentive left for miners will be transaction fee. With 10sat/vbyte and the current limited block size it will certainly too small to call an incentive and would discourage miners to continue mining most especially with the amount spent on the mining rigs and electricity, which will reduce decentralization. .

Although if some miners stop mining then it will actually reduce the power (hashrate) needed to mine and could potentially increase attacks like that of 51% attack.


I will like to have the block size still the same like this but have transactions(UTXO) on them having lesser weight, yes I know it’s what Segwit is about both I will need it to lower again than just separating the witness alone.

The UTXO method seems perfect but will like transactions on an address be a single UTXO no matter how many individuals transactions sent to that address.

Also would like a proposal that inscriptions or it’s likes if not removed then should only occupy a certain amount of space in the block like Just 20%.

I disagree with this assumption because firstly it's untrue and secondly you can not know pros and cons in technical side because you are not a programmer and Bitcoin developer.

You can raise your idea, make your proposals for what you want to be upgraded with Bitcoin blockchain, as a Bitcoin user, not as a Bitcoin developer.

It's hard to say like this because many things are correlated with each other and if you change one factor, some other factors will be affected or need to be changed too.

Block size, block time, and network security and you can not simply decrease block time but at the same time, network security will remain.

I agree with you because high transaction fees is one of the key factor militating against bitcoin adoption in many spheres. The few days Bitcoin transaction fee remained very low have been very exciting for people to continue their transaction without the pain of paying stupendous fees for minor business transactions. If there is any way to keep the fee very low, that will really encourage more Bitcoin adoption in businesses.

The challenge of this will only be if mining will be profitable because  setting a limit for memepool might require adjusting the mining difficulty in order to keep the business profitable.

Haha first of all I would love to add my name to Bitcoin's development contributors list, secondly, on the Bitcoin network, I would first add an FCFS-based transaction processing system regardless of how high a fee a particular transaction signer is paying to process his transaction. Hmm, I had already discussed this previously somewhere but seems like I'm still unsatisfied and want to know more why if it was implemented they removed it.

To achieve more efficiency let's split it into segments one for fee payers, one a regular random processing, and one based on FCFS, and these 3 segments should be processed in parallel.

Haha, just a random bluff never mind, well I will explain more if anyone wants to know with some technical terms as well, In the removal area I would love to remove the shity ordinals in order to achieve a more reliable system.

Removing the feature that allows runes and inscriptions that clog out the bitcoin network is probably the only thing that I care about the most, that's it. Not to mention that no one will really hate me for it besides the miners and it will eventually cool down anyway and they won't mind anymore. I don't really like inscriptions anyway, I mean what does it even do for the network? It only makes things more difficult for people to do transactions because it gets expensive when these people put a lot of it in the network.

I don't want to be the first person who feels smarter than Satoshi, I also don't want to assume that Satoshi made a mistake on a feature of Bitcoin by removing one that Satoshi had perfected. Everything had been very carefully considered before he launched Bitcoin to the public, Satoshi had also perfected Bitcoin before he left it.
If I had the ability to add and remove just one thing from Bitcoin, of course I would never do it because I really respect Satoshi as the person who created Bitcoin. So far I am very satisfied with all the features available in Bitcoin, there is not a single drawback that makes me feel like I have to delete it and then add new features to it.

I believe it would be a definite and more usable solution to the ordinance problem with the mempool, sometimes the crazy sats for transaction of Bitcoin gets so crazy that's becomes really really annoying so if am a developer and asked to changed I believe it would definitely be the removal of that issue although I know that the network solutions for that problem is the lightning network solution but the slow adoption to the issue just makes it seem unsolvable.

I don't think to add 1 thing and to remove 1 thing you only have to be a developer, there are other requirements too. But for the sake of the question, I will say, I will add dapps to it, but that's already been happening, and if I am to remove one thing that would be runes, ordinals, and BRC-20 tokens. Haha I know the additional and removal don't seem to compatible with each other as dapps would also bring the same issue as these runes and ordinals will brought and that would be increment in the fee.

All I want is, no increase in the btc transaction fee, to minimize that, we need scalability in BTC blockchain, and to increase the scalability many mechanisms are already in place, like taproot, segwit, lightning network etc. But I think we need more, I don't have the term in mind, as I am pretending to be a developer so I can't have the knowledge of developer while pretending, haha.

Plus one on this one and from that Bitcoin being the new form of digital money will become a reality as we can pay using Bitcoin for candies with 1sats/vb fee and we're good at that right? If not I don't know what is. Transaction speed also makes sense of course.

I would like to add just a Bitcoin bank if I had the chance, because I have been thinking lately that, the problem why Bitcoin is hardly being accepted in many countries is due to the fact that it hasn't yet had a structural building like branches in different regions of the world. Also I'm addition, it should have a physical currency that is spendable.

I would like to remove the hype and effect of whale movements, because this does a lot to affect prices and demand for BTC .

I have always reasoned that wallet addresses are too long to commit to memory, you cannot give someone your wallet address without copying it and sending it to them.
If it were possible, maybe I will like to shorten the wallet address and make it shorter so it can be easily memorized. If it is short and memorable, you can provide your address to someone to pay you in crypto more easily, I do not know if there's a demerit to this?

Nice suggestion, i wouldn’t have thought of anything better than this if I was a developer and have something to come up with to add to the invention of bitcoin. The high transaction fees is gradually affecting a lot of people, especially small holders into delaying their transactions and receiving their coins in a later time due to this high transaction fees they can’t tolerate. Only whales investors in bitcoin don’t feel too bothered too much about this transaction fees because of how seamless it is to them when they want to make a transaction on the blockchain with out minding the price at that time.


Nice suggestion too, for now I can’t think of any demerit to your opinion but how possible can it be because if you check how bitcoin was designed and how these wallets address are been generated, we can’t have more users getting their account created with almost different wallets at the same time.

Though I believe that Bitcoin is doing pretty well for itself despite all the hurdles and everything, however, if I were to add something to Bitcoin's network then I would probably go with increasing the block size so that a block could contain more transactions speeding up transactions because if a block could contain more txs, it will clear the mempool quickly and there will be no network congestion after that because network congestion causes a lot of issues for Bitcoin users and when it stays for long, it starts to make you annoyed after one point.

If we talk about removing one thing from it, then as said by some other members as well, I would remove ordinals and other stuff that make Bitcoin's network congested from time to time and that makes people making transactions in Bitcoin on a daily basis have a hard time because not everyone can pay a lot of money in fees.

I'd remove the Taproot upgrade loophole that allowed ordinals stuff to happen, thereby keeping NFT stuff from taking away space from monetary transactions. That's the only "bad" thing I can think of that's happening with Bitcoin.

One thing I would add or change would be probably just double the block size. Nothing crazy cuz obviously you don't scale at the base layer. The block size is just the arbitrary amount Satoshi chose a long time ago so it isn't necessarily the best size. A 2x would allow on-chain fees to stay cheaper for longer into the future and more importantly let people more quickly onboard to LN in the future when bitcoin starts being used for daily payments and that would be the main reason for a slightly larger block size, to allow more use of L2, all while keeping storage needed for nodes low and keeping the network decentralized. I feel like 4x or larger would harm decentralization but 2x is a big enough change to allow a lot more L2 onboarding, while being small enough to not effect individuals' ability to easily and cheaply run nodes.




The only other Bitcoin issue I can think of is the possibility for the 2 million or so bitcoin held in pay-to-public-key transactions from like 2009/2010/2011 era to be hacked once quantum computing becomes mature in the decades to come. I'm not 100% on that but from what I've read quantum computing will eventually allow that to happen. So if that's true, I'd skip the small blocksize increase and instead I'd hard fork to invalidate any unspent output sitting in that format, giving old holders plenty of time (years) in advance to move their bitcoin to later formats that are secure against QC. Thus eliminating the potential huge QC problem of a couple million bitcoin getting hacked and dumped on the market in the future. If my reading is wrong and that won't actually be a problem, then yeah just the 2x block size increase.

Pretend to be a Bitcoin developer? Yes trying to do something that can launch transactions without constrained network traffic that makes transaction costs high so that it can interfere with businesses that use bitcoin — fees are always low.

Apart from that I do not want to shift anything because it is quite satisfied with Bitcoin.

Honestly, being a Bitcoin developer is my dream.

SCALABILITY!

We arent that blind nor not knowing about this main issue or problem of Bitcoin on which talks about scalability on which this could cause up that network congestion which in resulting into those peak
Network fee on which it do really sucks if it happens.

Here's some precise words in regarding to this:
The Bitcoin scalability problem refers to the limited capability of the Bitcoin network to handle large amounts of transaction data on its platform in a short span of time.[1] It is related to the fact that records (known as blocks) in the Bitcoin blockchain are limited in size and frequency
Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem#:~:text=The%20Bitcoin%20scalability%20problem%20refers,limited%20in%20size%20and%20frequency.)

If this one would really be resolved out then Bitcoin would really be already perfect when it comes to payment option because there's no way for fees
to soar up.  :)

Yup that's the first thing that came into my mind that I'd block all that useless junk. I guess that would count as adding and removing. I'd add rules to remove ordinals.
It might not be a bad idea to add an option to mix bitcoin. I feel like if mixing was included in the original code, bitcoin would become even more private and secure, but despite my opinion, I probably wouldn't go that far. I'd be afraid to break bitcoin somehow. US agencies would probably target me for doing that as they hate privacy and mixing.

To those that want to increase the block size, this was already discussed years ago and most people did not want that. Small blocks aren't ideal, but they've worked so far and messing with that could break the balance that worked for a decade. It's better to build layers like lightning than mess with the original protocol.

The bitcoin features are well designed. I don’t see anything that we need to add because since the existence of bitcoin, everything has been going smoothly. If to say the currency is facing some challenges, we would’ve said the developers should add some new features so that we can get rid of them, but since everything is going normal, I don’t think there is anything to reduce in the features of bitcoin.

And if I should add, the only thing I will do is find a way that will stop the mempool from congesting regardless of the transaction because that thing is getting worse sometimes and you don’t really like it. I even get upset sometimes if I try to run a transaction for too long or for too many days. Especially when I’m in need of money.

Exactly, that's also what I want to change in bitcoin. Recently,  the transaction fees are getting too high, and the network is so crowded that it will take time before you can receive or complete a transaction. So I also want to change a little bit about the bitcoin transaction fees and network. I know it will be a hard thing, but as we said, if we just want to, right? And another thing I want to change in bitcoin is its max supply. We know that there is only a limited bitcoin supply that can be mined, and after that, there will be no bitcoin mining,so I want to increase it a little bit, let's say 30 to 50. Because currently we have only 21 million limited supplies. why?  Well, so that we can still earn from mining, and of course, we never know what will happen after all the bitcoins are mined.

I'm thinking of increasing the block size.

Increasing the block size means larger size per block, and that would potentially decrease the transaction fees, and the confirmation time would be faster. On the other hand, that would mean Bitcoin will be more centralized than it is today because only the large miners will be the one to handle those large blocks, and smaller ones will not.

TBH, it's very easy for us that are not developers to say what features we want to add in Bitcoin but in reality, adding one means compromising one as well like on what I said where increasing the block size means decreasing transaction fees, but it would be more centralized now. I guess this is the reason why developers are kind of thinking twice or thrice, sometimes hesitant to add additional features on to Bitcoin.

High transaction fees. I am not sure how exactly but I would want to reduce or remove high transaction fees because this is one of the major issues that is killing Bitcoin. Users want to transact smaller value but it is very unfortunate that they can’t. Which is why other blockchains are loud about having low transaction fee. If Bitcoin fees were low, the number of users will greatly multiply.

     From what I've seen, the only thing that Bitcoin holders don't like the most is that when the ordinals and runes do something, their fees increase too much. And it's really a headache,
so if I'm one of the developers, I'll keep it low as long as the fee is only moderate and not very low. 

     Because in this way, the number of others who don't know about bitcoin but who will see its potential will for sure increase its adoption. In this way a lot of bitcoin holders will be more happyif they will see the fee is maintain its low every time there is a transaction.

I think that everyone's going to want the same thing for bitcoin, I mean the fact that everyone can benefit from it is probably the best thing that can happen to bitcoin, no doubts about this one. Another thing that will probably be of big help if I was a developer, I would deal with the speed of transactions, that means that faster confirmations and more transaction would be done in a short time. I can see why you think that it's going to be faster when the fees are lower, I mean people don't really like taxes at all and fees are working like that so lowering them kind of makes it look like you're lowering the taxes.

Many people complain about bitcoin's high transaction fees and slow processing speed, and sometimes I get annoyed by that too. But nothing is perfect without drawbacks and bitcoin is no exception, so I am satisfied with what bitcoin has and do not want to add or subtract anything. What I want is for no one to be able to modify or change anything because if someone can do it once then they can modify it many times and eventually bitcoin will no longer be what it is. I hope bitcoin will stay as it is and no one can change it.

That's not how it works. Block size doesn't affect one bit which miners can mine.
The centralization would comes from the nodes, not the miners. It would be more expensive to run a node because you would have to buy more storage over time to run a node if more data is in blocks. And more data would take longer to pass around the network so there may be more orphaned blocks. Of course if it was only a small increase it wouldn't really affect much. But a big increase, like increasing it many times over, would be real bad for decentralization.

The first is the problem of Scalability and Transaction Efficiency, please optimize it immediately and the second is just wanting to know the latest developments regarding Proof of Work Consensus?

Bitcoin has its testnet, this is good enough for anyone who wants to play around with Bitcoin.

If Node is what a player to wants, they have to run the real Nodes as there isn't much difference, if you can try the demo you can try the original.

If you do need a Bitcoin demo here is one

https://github.com/ruanbekker/bitcoin-full-node-demo

Every developer wishes to add stability to BTC and remove the volatility from the market as much as he can do it and take it to the minimum level.

I don't know much about the technicalities but that's the two of the things that every man associated with BTC wants. If these conditions prevails then people will be much more benefited from the crypto market then ever before.

If I were a developer, I don't want to add or remove something from what its already work because perhaps that can influence or impact the other things that I don't knows. People already satisfy with all of the things from Bitcoin and even if there is a bug or something, the other developer will fix it. Besides that, I think it is not easy to add or remove one thing to Bitcoin except you knows the whole things inside Bitcoin and that can only for those who knows many language system and already mastered it.

Perhaps if someone wants to separate something from Bitcoin because he knows a thing that can be a new coin, that will be different. But that will needs more skills to follows what it is already runs and most people doesn't knows about it.

Most of us here are just investors, we only know the basics about bitcoin, none of us are developers, how can we know what bitcoin needs and what it doesn't need? I guess most would say they would find ways to reduce transaction fees, increase block sizes to speed up transaction processing...because those are the things that annoy bitcoin users the most. But I believe that the developers also see those problems but there must be a reason and until now they have not intervened or come up with any solution. So as a bitcoin investor, we should be satisfied with what we have and improving bitcoin, I think let the developers complete it.

Well, like you said, let's assume a magic happens today and I became a developer which is going to last only for a few hours or minutes, then I would first of, create a decentralization blockchain platform that can allow every Bitcoiner from every part of the world to freely and easily buy and sell Bitcoin without going through KYC procedures. Secondly, I will remove Bitcoin from every centralized exchange if that's possible to do, then allow btc to be traded only on the DEX or other DEX.

Remove: Runes and Ordinals. This is the most obvious answer ever. ;D
Add: To be honest, I really don't know. Maybe adding something to the Bitcoin blockchain would make it congested again, just like with the Runes and Ordinals. Bitcoin is just fine the way it is and adding new features on the blockchain will ruin the experience and make the transaction fees higher. Adding more privacy features in the BTC blockchain and making BTC look more like a privacy coin could be a step in the wrong direction. The governments will become really hostile towards BTC and a mass ban might occur in the future.
I would just follow the saying "If it works, don't touch it."  ;D

Creating a new project in cryptocurrency is very easy and anyone can do it, but making the project you are developing have lots of fans is not as easy as you currently imagine. Developers need quite a lot of capital which is used to carry out campaigns or advertising costs which are used to promote the projects being developed.

I would add some kind of 2FA or something like that, which is needed to confirm the transactions so, even if someone somehow gets access to your wallet, he can't move the funds. Many people are scared to be their own bank not just because of the responsibility but also because transactions are irreversible so if you make a single mistake you can actually lose everything. So in a certain way I would say that the total transactions' irreversibility for me is partially a problem. I understand the logic behind it but I would love to improve somehow its security.

Every developer wants to add something new to improve their projects. Additions that people want can increase the demand for crypto. But bitcoin is not stable so no one can say how long it will last if something new is added good things will lead to good levels.

Such as grouping transactions that are expensive to occupy the slot 33% of the block and the rest for regular transactions.
But to determine whether the transaction is regular or not, does it have to raise the fee more to become a regular place,
and surely everyone will choose to increase the fee to be the first to be processed by the block.

Especially if the Ordinal network or Runes start to hype, more transactions will occur and tremendous spikes, network congestion and fees will be higher.
Expecting a stable fee at 10sat/vbyte-1sat/vbyte is still not possible, this is a conditional problem of course.

Whether it is necessary to separate the BRC20 network ordinals and Runes so that the main transactions of bitcoin are not disrupted,
Ordinals and Runes have a great influence on network congestion and tremendous fee increases.

Bitcoin L2 has now developed a solution to overcome the limitations of the Bitcoin mainnet,
such as long block times, limited transaction capacity, and high transaction fees.

Only look alike? But what about the original? I think that is more better. I have a question, is that protocol same as what Monero, Zcash, and other privacy coins use? You should not doubt but it will get approved because many of us do also want more privacy for our BTC transactions.

Maybe the only ones that will complain is the regulators but this is risky for BTC because they already request for the exchanges to remove these privacy coins. That is only our problem there. As for the remover, I agree about the Ordinals. They are a cancer to BTC, or its community. Only the ones who benefit at it are the shady people. There are still other add-ons in BTC that are helpful, so they are worthy to keep.

Absolutely all we can do is complain. We have no actual ability to solve these problems ourselves. It’s probably difficult to find ways to do what we ask for without compromising other features of bitcoin. Most especially its security. If making a solution so that transactions fees wouldn’t be so high anymore would require for bitcoin’s security and decentralization to be sacrificed then a lot more issues would come up.

Just hoping that one day we actually get some good balance between the two issues.

Like you said,One aspect that developers may choose to remove from Bitcoin is transaction malleability. Transaction malleability refers to the ability to change the unique identifier of a transaction before it gets confirmed on the blockchain. This issue can lead to potential complications and vulnerabilities in the network. By removing transaction malleability, Bitcoin could improve transaction reliability and overall security

As a developer, you are supposed to know about the project and in this case bitcoin lile the back of your hand. Maybe the reason why you are not a developer because there are things about bitcoin you do not understand.

Yes Bitcoin works but it doesn't mean that we should stop trying to make it better and just wait until it eventually breaks.
if all developers had this mindset then no one would be doing anything as they would just be passing the task around.
Most likely if they see something in bitcoin they think they can make better, they make a whole different project so that they can make profit off of it. All the other altcoins are just a copy of bitcoin almost.

After all, none of us are developers, we are just pure investors and for investors, the only thing we want is to make as much profit as possible. So asking investors to come up with suggestions to improve bitcoin is effectively an impossible task, and it's impossible to criticize them.
It's no surprise that many investors are happy with what's going on because what they care about is bitcoin's volatility, not the performance of the bitcoin blockchain.

Like me, I'm also happy with what bitcoin has, my only concern is the transaction fees. I also hope the developer will fix it, but I think they definitely have their own reasons and difficulties, so I will accept and adapt to the current transaction fee.

As much as we can see some flaws of bitcoin, I’m sure the developers themselves are also addressing the problem as well but the fact that until now it’s still not settled, then most likely there could be some barriers that block them from doing it. Whatever it is, it’s only them that can relate.

Bitcoin is currently good but I know there are still more to it that needs improvement. And the good thing is, at the end of the day, only us the bitcoin enthusiasts, investors and traders will be the one to benefit it the most.

I'd adopt what other altcoins have in terms of fees. While it's a visible thing that fees for the past few months of Bitcoin can't even go a cent anymore. As the fees are being balanced into satoshis per byte which makes it higher because the price of Bitcoin has increased a lot. Well, I am not technically expert on it but if that's an easy thing to do then the devs have done that already.

But for now, I'm content to whatever happens to it because it all comes together with the demand. And I'd rather choose the demand to go higher and see the value of fees in satoshis remains the same while looking at the dollar value of it increase as the counterpart of it. I am getting used to it and there's no way to do much on it and the devs probably are weighing things on it.

We can just use alternatives on it and as for Bitcoin, this is more of a store value nowadays and we all want to see its price go higher and its demand as well. But at back of it, we understand what are the considerations and what we have to sacrifice for it to be attained.

Even if the developer cannot fix or improve those problems, it is not too serious because nothing is perfect , so we need to accept it and not demand too much from bitcoin .

Although bitcoin has high transaction fees and much slower processing speed than altcoin blockchains, in return it gives us decentralization , privacy and security that no other altcoin has. Just like if we want to use high quality products, we need to spend more money to buy expensive things. Everything has a price to pay, we cannot demand cheap but high quality things. Even we ourselves are not perfect, so we should not be strict or set too high requirements for everything.