|
thecodebear (OP)
|
 |
March 07, 2023, 04:35:45 PM
Last edit: March 07, 2023, 04:49:16 PM by thecodebear |
|
21 billion bitcoin:
I like the idea someone put up of 21 billion Bitcoin thus making the price in the double digits rather than double digit thousands. This is just purely an optics things for newcomers. I mean I do think a high price gives the idea that Bitcoin is extremely valuable, but also it is a fact that many people new to Bitcoin just assume it can't increase in value much anymore because it is already so high. I talked to a friend of mine who only had doge and I asked him why the heck he bought something as silly as doge (cuz of Musk of course...this was back in early 2021) and told him he should buy Bitcoin and he said it's already at $50,000 so it can't possibly go much higher. People new to Bitcoin/Crypto don't have an idea of how big global money can be, and how small Bitcoin's market cap is compared to its future potential. They just see a price high in the thousands and think it can't increase much. There is definitely a price-unit bias against Bitcoin for people uneducated on Bitcoin which makes newbies more likely to buy some cheap crap altcoin rather than Bitcoin.
I don't think a satoshi should necessarily be the unit called a bitcoin (ie 2,100,000,000,000,000 bitcoin) because then Bitcoin would seem like some worthless penny stock to newcomers. So I like the idea of 21 billion bitcoin instead of 21 million. That way even when Bitcoin gets up into the millions it would still seem affordable to noobs cuz it would only be in the low thousands, but it would still seem valuable with a fairly high price.
Add another decimal place:
I would also give Bitcoin more digits of division. By which I mean increase the number of satoshis by 10 by giving one more decimal place to the currency. Once the price of Bitcoin goes over a million dollars one satoshi is going to be more than one US cent. So probably sometime next decade the smallest unit of bitcoin won't even be smaller than the smallest division of USD and I don't think that is good because it'll make converting bitcoin to USD imprecise. So one or even two extra decimal places would be ideal.
Stop Ordinals NFTs:
I guess the most obvious recent thing is fix the unintended mistake in taproot that allowed ordinal NFTs to be created and stop stupid pictures from clogging up the network.
Mining (wouldn't change):
Someone said make mining less energy intensive but I would never want that and nobody who understands PoW and Bitcoin should want that. Also Bitcoin isn't energy intensive, its the economics of bitcoin that create the desire to consume all the energy. The economics of bitcoin mining are incredibly strong and make bitcoin the most secure decentralized network on the planet, so to say it shouldn't do that would mean using something different than PoW which would be very bad for Bitcoin and for the world. Bitcoin only uses as much energy as miners find economically viable. Bitcoin itself is not energy intensive, it simply creates a very valuable market and it is that market that is energy intensive. It'd be like saying you don't like how much volume is traded on bitcoin exchanges and you wish it was less, it isn't bitcoin that creates the volume, its the market.
Also, the fact that Bitcoin uses PoW is a huge benefit to society for several energy related reasons - bitcoin mining can prevent the massive waste of unused energy in society, it can strengthen the energy infrastructure of the world, and help drive the world to renewables by making them more profitable and increasing their manufacture by using them to collect stranded energy for mining.
Someone also said have all the statistics of mining - energy source (ie renewable vs fossil), and who, what, where, when of mining recorded but that simply isn't possible because all those things have nothing to do with mining and they are external data. There is no way to put/force that external data into the blockchain. This is why Bitcoin relies on energy for security and not something much easier to do because there is no way to fake energy input, while inputting any sort of external data can always simply be made up and there is no way to enforce accuracy. Even if the system made miners fill in some data fields with all this information there would be no way whatsoever to confirm its accuracy. I mean if you could make a blockchain's security run on any external data and still keep it decentralized you could just make it so each human can only count as one miner, that would be ultimate decentralization, but inputting enforceable external data isn't possible in a decentralized system.
Slightly larger blocks:
If designing Bitcoin from scratch now I'd probably up the blocksize by maybe 4x. There isn't much point in going really large because no amount of on-chain scaling would be enough to handle mass transactions, whereas trying to do so would just turn Bitcoin into a centralized altcoin and then it would lose its entire value proposition as the best money humanity has ever had. L2 will always be needed and is the only way to scale. But I'm pretty sure with internet speeds and disk space improving we could increase the blocksize a few times over without affecting people's ability to run nodes and propagate transactions through the network. This would allow on-chain txs to remain cheap for years longer while L2s mature and become ready for mass use.
Alternatively something like a small increase built into every halving so the blocks grow a little bit once every four years as internet speeds and disk space increase, and once halvings stop the increases would stop so it wouldn't just be a run on thing that gets out of control. This would stop the stupid idea that bitcoin should be a big block centralized coin (like the failed centralized tokens BCH and BSV...or any other crypto) while still giving tx fees some relief over time as adoption increases, and done in a small gradual way that doesn't hurt decentralization because it would allow technology to keep up with the increases. And L2 would still be needed for the 99%+ small every-day payments and for in-person situations where payment needs to be made within seconds.
Design with Layer 2's in mind:
I'd want to figure out the best L2 networks that could be designed and figure out what on-chain features are necessary to allow those L2s. L2 is absolutely necessary, so a blockchain built with L2 in mind and with L2s created at the same time as the blockchain to make sure everything works as designed would be key.
ASIC resistant mining:
I guess some PoW chains have ASIC resistance don't they? I mean if there is a way to allow CPUs or GPUs to be the drivers of mining that'd be great because then anyone could mine because it would greatly lower the cost of getting into mining.
Access to lost addresses (wouldn't want because not possible in a decentralized way):
Someone mentioned this and said people don't want this because people want bitcoin to get lost because it makes bitcoin more scarce haha. That is not remotely the reason people don't want this. Nobody wants bitcoin to get lost. But the question is how would this even be possible in a secure decentralized network? I don't think it is possible.
Ethereum just implemented the ability to get back lost funds but I think the only reason it is possible on Ethereum is because they have the EVM running on top of the blockchain and so I think accounts run on the EVM and so I guess they can give access back to accounts without needing the keys I guess? Also from what I can tell there's basically a council or something on the network that will decide requests to re-enable access to accounts. It all sounds very centralized and also I imagine this will open up a whole new attack vector on people's Ethereum accounts as hackers try to convince whoever is in charge of granting access to accounts to give them access to accounts that aren't actually there's. Granted it all sounds amazing from a user experience making Ethereum more usable and simple for newcomers, but it's just an example of further centralization and new attack vectors, and it sounds like Ethereum is essentially turning into a bank, while Bitcoin's intent is to be secure sovereign decentralized money so people can bank themselves and not need something like the Ethereum foundation or a bank to have ultimate control over their finances and their money, so I don't think there is any way to have this sort of thing on Bitcoin without trashing Bitcoin's whole purpose.
Quantum Computing resistant:
From what I understand when quantum computing gets mature they will be able to hack private keys from public keys, but not from public addresses. And apparently there are still 2 million or so bitcion held in the original transaction type in which money was sent to public keys rather than public addresses. Meaning at some point there's gonna be around 2 million bitcoin (I guess half of that is Satoshi's) that will be able to be stolen and put back on the market by the first company/govt with a fast enough quantum computer. So if this is all correct, I would obviously design Bitcoin today to only user the latest tx types which would not only make it more efficient than the older ones but also remove this quantum threat.
Side Chain protocol for smart contracts:
I suppose, in addition to as stated earlier designing L2s from the beginning alongside Bitcoin, I would at this point want a L2 or sidechain or something like that with smart contract abilities to be designed from the start with Bitcoin. Keeping it as a L2 or sidechain or whatever would keep it from bloating the blockchain, while also essentially making all of Crypto worthless because there would be no need for anything but Bitcoin. I know there are sidechains and stuff on bitcoin that allow smart contracts but they seem to be centralized like altcoins in that they are products of companies and run by those companies or by a small group, rather than set up in a decentralized protocol sort of way.
Namespace for addresses:
I would want a namespace stored on the blockchain to relate public addresses with comprehensible names. And you would be able to assign an address a name simply by sending say a 1 satoshi transaction from that address with the name you want....or something like that. This would make sending transactions to people wayyyyy easier because you wouldn't have to carefully type in some crazy set of unintelligible characters. And if obviously wallet software would make sure the name is in existence or even let you know if the name on an address you've sent money to before has changed.
On-chain upgrading
Some altcoins do this, where upgrades are voted on-chain and so I assume the whole process is somehow done through the protocol. This would be great for improving Bitcoin's 'open source-iness' and I think it would allow small desirable changes to the protocol to happen quickly rather than big upgrades only once every few years.
That's everything I can think of.
|
