Bitcoin Forum

Hey BitCoin enthusiasts, I am trying to figure out if it is possible or if people even want a better BTC. If so how would you go about doing this.

1. Looking for ideas including, making it fair for everyone in bitcoin possibly sending to a switch address and receiving the same amount of the new coin?
2. What type of algo you think is best.
3. How many coins?
4. other features the coin can do. (Ex. AI,science,ETC)

Thanks in advance for your ideas.

Cryptonote

AFAIK, Cryptonote cleans the old transactions, which is not good to keep evidence. Probably good for anonymity though...

better and more secure? I would make it so that every transaction has to go through my permission. That way bad actors can't possibly do anything, not even a 51% attack :D

Eliminate the possibility of a 51% attack...

I am not sure it is possible. I would want to make bitcoin ASIC proof, so mining could be more distributed.

Reward halving to be only 1/3 or 1/4, that will not change the limited total supply but smooth out the distribution phase. Current reward halving scheme is just too steep that causes large appreciation expectation in general

Is that even physically possible?

how?

Would you mind going into more detail with this? Are you thinking of a 2 year approach like litecoin is doing?


So far the only implimentation of asic proof I have seen is with CureCoin using protein folding as mining. Do you have any other ideas on how to do this?


There have been many ways implemented to solve this one include POS minting. What do you think is best?


Some financial investments require old transactions for proof of transaction. How would you propose to make anonymity and visible users happy in this case?

Why is protein folding ASIC-resistant?

I think it's pretty difficult to make Bitcoin really "more secure" in any way. The core principles remain intact, still. There hasn't been a single occurrence of the Bitcoin core principles failing or allowing a fraudulent transaction. Making Wallets and computer systems safer is a whole other story, and I don't think that changes to Bitcoin can do anything to tackle those problems, unfortunately...

Slower halvings, so the extreme early adopters would not have such huge advantage, like happened with BTC

this is something that may work well for now, is an idea about a code to be added just in case

Something like "ignore a longer chain orphaning the current best chain if the sum(priorities of transactions included in new chain) is much less than sum(priorities of transactions in the part of the current best chain that would be orphaned)" would mean a 51% attacker would have to have both lots of hashing power AND lots of old, high-priority bitcoins to keep up a transaction-denial-of-service attack. And they'd pretty quickly run out of old, high-priority bitcoins and would be forced to either include other people's transactions or have their chain rejected.

http://gavintech.blogspot.it/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

Couldn't they just get around that by doing their own high priority transactions?

I think Bitcoin is really well thought out, and changing things as the halving rate wouldn't make it better or more secure in any way... I'd just leave it as it is :)

it will be a war in the end, to who will connect to more nodes, like satoshi said about transaction confirmation

Make it fully anonymous, possibly like Dogecoin.

This would make a great addition.


This is the truth. =/


No there are plenty of those. I am attempting to create a proposal for the BTC foundation. It wouldnt be for a few years, but time will tell that btc is not perfect and things need to change. Just trying to think about it early.


Very interesting. =p thank you


Would you mind explaining how this would help?


The only thing I have seen and it has occured over 17 times. is gigahash.io getting over the 51% mark and holding for an amount of time.


Protein folding require heavy rendering from cpu and gpu's. So some really big super computer's atm are the closest thing to an asic for it.

Bitcoin has perfect security and I would change nothing. Everything we need can and will be built on top of the protocol foundation layer we call "the blockchain"/Bitcoin.

That doesn't seem to answer my question. Anything a CPU or GPU does, an ASIC can do it better (provided the correct algorithm for the task, of course).

Have there been any talk about fixing the 51% issue? Or what are your thoughts on this.?

The hashrate distribution (https://blockchain.info/pools) has been evolving in a healthy direction for quite awhile. As of this post no pool has more than 20% hashing share. I believe this trend will continue.

I would use more secure encryption algorithms like aes-256 for example to make transactions hashes more secure. I would also eliminate the 51% attack possibility and make block size bigger.

the real issue with 51% isn't that big as many think, because no one in his right mind would spend a ton in mining equipment just to do a 51'ed to the network, it would be better for him to secure it in this case....

also if you take into account that the bitoin price is ridiculously low ,it is even stupid to do such a thing

:)

Sounds like a good recipe for civil war 2.0.

What kind of question is this? Bitcoin is the definition of perfection.  :P LOLOLOL

I did not fully understand the features and systems of cryptocoin, but I hope that bitcoin will be safer from the actions of hackers

Cleaning old transactions is not a requirement of Cryptonote. https://cryptonote.org/ (https://cryptonote.org/) The key advantages of Cryptonote in my opinion over Bitcoin are ring signatures to provide fungibility and privacy and adaptive limits. The latter deals with the 1 MB blocksize issue right from the start.

Just don't name them “bits”, and we're good to go.

If there's a chance to recreate the perfect money, the only thing that concerns me is how to develop a system where there will be a fair distribution during the early stage and maintain on that for at least a few years. During that time, to build on the acceptance rate, encourage adoption, develop the infrastructure until most of the people have at least a good chance to get to know the coin and acquire it.

Fact is no matter how you control it, there is always a way where whales group will start to form and manipulate it. I can't think of a way. Probably someone would one day be able to come up with a good solution.

I'm going to agree with this but partially. Something should be done to improve the anonymity and fix the blocksize issue, but there are probably better ways.
There has to be a solution. I wonder though why nobody is trying to implement anything? A 51% attack is the Achilles heel of Bitcoin.


That's what people in the Bitcoin community are hoping. The problem is bigger than you think. What's preventing the banks from turning on a 300 PHash farm right now? Nothing.
There are people to which Bitcoin is not a thread. Spending money to eliminate a thread is rational.

for 300peta you need like 100M(1/33 of the entire market value of bitcoin, right now) dollars to buy all the miners, is this worth it? i don't think so, because even if you do a double spend, you will not be able to recover such amount and plus making money out of it, because every exchange will lock any account if they see something suspicious...

at best you could recoup 100k bitcoin(and you need 425k+ at least) from an attack, not to mention you can't dump 100k bitcoin all at the highest price, and if you dump them slowly, they will caught you early, double spend transactions are revealed in the blockchain

you will end up losing

Your logic is flawed. Why would the banks need money? The people running the show are the ones that are at risk.

well your is even more flawed then, because you started with saying "if banks turning on(which mean buying) 300peta of hash", i answer in the same way, why they need to do this if they don't need money??

also it doesn't matter what is their intention(even if they want only to kill bitcoin), they will lose money doing it, end of story

This is valid if you think about a typical private entity. But a big private entity which can vew Bitcoin as a threat to their businness can do this. Also, govenrments can execute a 51% attack if they want (as well seize legit mining operations in order to facilitate this) without worryng much about financial losses.

the point is also, that a 51% can't kill bitcoin actually, because it would only mean that its price will restart from one/zero, like a new birth, thus making pointless do a 51 only for killing it, normally one would do it for the money...

PoW coin is a stepping stone for PoS coin. Supply of the coin should not be bound as population still growing so is the economic.

I agree a 51% attack doesn't kill Bitcoin. The network per si would remain alive. But if you can't do a transaction, Bitcoin is useless.

The issue is not about the lack of profitability of a 51% attack. The issue is more political. It's about doing a 51% attack to force you to use fiat money.

well in that case it wouldn't change much right? because the majority are here only for fiat currency seeing how their only purpose is to dump for fiat

Make 2-FA authentication a must have.

No it is not. You have a wrong understanding of the possible scenario. If a certain % of people move to Bitcoin completely the banks are going to lose a part of their business.
That's how Bitcoin is a potential threat. They will lose money investing on their equipment to save themselves from losing more money.

Everyone would jump ship quickly as Bitcoin as it is would be broken. A hard fork would be necessary (then again what's preventing them to jumping aboard again since they already have the equipment?).
Good luck with the belief that Bitcoin is unbeatable and that unicorns can fly.  ::)

Like I said. Banks.

You don't.
Bitcoin is a perfect network.

Human is so fool that they can't see this now (they prefer the insurance of bank for money ... and they pay in QE for this) ... like they can't see the P2P network as a replacment of streaming media.



you don't need assistance of financial sector with a Bitcoin network.

well you changed the cards on the table, i wasn't talking about the future , i was talking about the present(notice how my calculations were based on current market cap, with bigger adoption there will be a bigger market cap, so banks need to invest like two more zero to my calculation, still not worth it...), right now it's not worth it to do a 51% not matter the intention and it will be the same in the future...

also if the majority will move to bitcoin, it mean that we reached mainstream status it also mean that nor the bank or the government can't do shit anyway, because to do a 51% account at that point would require billion/trillion of dollars or even more, and this isn't a thing that a single entity could do alone, you would need all the banks and governaments combined.

I would design btc as a POW/POS hybrid coin, it's good for holders and miners, POW consumption is huge because we need to buy miners, and invest a lot on electricity.

The other aspect is decrease block time, 10 minutes is too long, I expect 1 min blocktime like dogecoin, it's more like currency.

1. This is possible. You can create a (hard) fork using the same block chain, so everyone in the original network will have the same number of coins in the new network. The problem with this scheme is because you need to determinate a block where this fork shall happen, and this can lead to accusations about conflicts of interest.

2. I don't see anything special about other algos. I would stick with SHA-256 or SHA-3 unless they're not quantum-resistant. Or doing something like Myriad, which puts multiple algos, each one with its own target.

3. I would like to avoid decimal units, so, at least 10 quadrillion with perpetual subsidies. Just for comparision, Bitcoin has 2.1 quadrillion atomic unities, so the difference isn't much at all. I think perpertual subsideies is important, because in case of another coin appears and starts to grow in popularity, the dominant coin can collapse more faster than it should because of fall of transaction volume combined with the lack of new issued coins. Or in case you create a coin bu after the initial distribution, it doesn't get much popularity, this can be essential to its surviving. The all-or-nothing, where the coin needs a lot of transaction volume in order to survive or it dies is bad.

4. Well, I can add features like focus on privacy. Another interesting thing would be about energetic efficiency in processing the transactions. For example, if you look to BitTorrent, you'll notice they share files with all the world without requiring a lot of processing power. Something about would be interesting. But I don't think proof-of-stake is the solution for this (I think something like similar to NODE or BURST).


Well, this is a good question. Will the difficulty of the network reach to a point where you'll need a amount of money which only the big financial sector disposes in order to maintain the mining operations somewhat profitable?


Excessively fast block times is bad because it generates a lot of orphans, which means more energy wasted. Also it isn't necessarily more secure against double spend attacks.

I would make rewards for blocks mined lower. Start off with 25 bitcoins as a reward for the first 10,000 blocks, then 10 bitcoins until the supply reaches its last 1,000,000 bitcoins left.

and will this have any much effect on the outcome or efficiency of miner's activity