What if YOU could put 1 feature, change, whatever, into the Bitcoin protocol?

[ensurance982]

Block reward down to every year.

You mean block reward halving?

Yes halving, that would cause some fireworks.

You wouldn't necessarily have to cut down the reward in half every year, you could just go and multiply it by 0.9 or something, which would smoothen things up a bit.

The current implementation using an integer shift operation to approximately halve the reward is very simple and elegant to those who can read and understand the code. There are lots of problems associated with replacing that with some kind of floating point operation, the biggest one being that you need to make sure that the reduction of reward is the same across all platforms. This is not as simple as it sounds because different computing platforms have different rounding errors. The second problem is how you would deal with the last few Satoshis? I mean if you were down to 3 Satoshi block rewards you can't reduce it so 2.7 Satoshis at the next reduction.

Ah well you can tackle those problems: Store Bitcoins as integers/longs (already being done this way) and then divide them with fixed-point arithmetics in a precisely defined manner. Drop all the remaining Satoshis (we're already getting pretty weird rewards in a couple of 4*n years, actually!)
But I see the problems and understand the beauty in the current implementation.

[R2D221]

I would like normal people with low spec computers. {CPU/GPU's} to be once again able to mine Bitcoins. It should have built in code to detect mining farms and throttle/reduce their income, to make it less viable for them to mine on such a big scale. {ASIC proof}

Then, companies like DELL can pre-install mining software with every computer the sell, to be enabled by the user, when the computer is not in use. {The user will then get rewarded for sharing his CPU/GPU to help with mining and he can pay his electricity bill automatically} In a perfect world, this should cover his full bill, with the added electricity he used for normal use and the extra electricity he used for the mining.  

This will put some money back into the pockets of MANY people, who are in debt and enable projects where electricity costs are a issue and also help with sustaining Bitcoin mining.

We can just dream.    

The idea is very interesting and I think you are trying to tackle a very important problem, but building specialized machines (ASICs) in order to solve a PoW-based task will always be possible, I believe :-/

Even if you have ASIC-resistance, big companies can buy thousands of CPUs and have mining farms as well. It may not be as efficient as ASIC, but they will certainly have an advantage over the common users.

[Bitware]

I would add a CheckBox-suppressible ('never show again' and 'remind me later') popup that prompts users to encrypt their wallets,  copy-&-paste/write-down their passphrase so they dont forget it, and present them with an option to download a wallet copy to any media source (cd, floppy, thumb drive, local file, memory chip/card, external device etc.)

[QuestionAuthority]

I would add a CheckBox-suppressible ('never show again' and 'remind me later') popup that prompts users to encrypt their wallets,  write down their passphrase so they dont forget it, and present them with an option to download a wallet copy to any media source (cd, floppy, thumb drive, local file, memory chip/card, external device etc.)

What's a floppy? lol

[Bitware]

I would add a CheckBox-suppressible ('never show again' and 'remind me later') popup that prompts users to encrypt their wallets,  write down their passphrase so they dont forget it, and present them with an option to download a wallet copy to any media source (cd, floppy, thumb drive, local file, memory chip/card, external device etc.)

What's a floppy? lol

My TRS-80 uses these: http://www.freeimages.co.uk/galleries/transtech/informationtechnology/slides/quarter_inch_disk.htm

I still got a bunch of them. They were an upgrade from the cassette drive. haha

[QuestionAuthority]

I would add a CheckBox-suppressible ('never show again' and 'remind me later') popup that prompts users to encrypt their wallets,  write down their passphrase so they dont forget it, and present them with an option to download a wallet copy to any media source (cd, floppy, thumb drive, local file, memory chip/card, external device etc.)

What's a floppy? lol

My TRS-80 uses these: http://www.freeimages.co.uk/galleries/transtech/informationtechnology/slides/quarter_inch_disk.htm

I still got a bunch of them. They were an upgrade from the cassette drive. haha

My god, I haven't heard about a TRS-80 since the 70s. Since you're still using that stuff, I'll loan you my old Winchester hard drive. It's 5mb and about the size of a briefcase. lol

[Amph]

I would like normal people with low spec computers. {CPU/GPU's} to be once again able to mine Bitcoins. It should have built in code to detect mining farms and throttle/reduce their income, to make it less viable for them to mine on such a big scale. {ASIC proof}

Then, companies like DELL can pre-install mining software with every computer the sell, to be enabled by the user, when the computer is not in use. {The user will then get rewarded for sharing his CPU/GPU to help with mining and he can pay his electricity bill automatically} In a perfect world, this should cover his full bill, with the added electricity he used for normal use and the extra electricity he used for the mining.  

This will put some money back into the pockets of MANY people, who are in debt and enable projects where electricity costs are a issue and also help with sustaining Bitcoin mining.

We can just dream.    

The idea is very interesting and I think you are trying to tackle a very important problem, but building specialized machines (ASICs) in order to solve a PoW-based task will always be possible, I believe :-/

Even if you have ASIC-resistance, big companies can buy thousands of CPUs and have mining farms as well. It may not be as efficient as ASIC, but they will certainly have an advantage over the common users.

common users in this case, would have a bit of breath, because they could use gpu, which are far better than cpu, they will still be behind, but they at least will put a dent on it

[Bitware]

I would add a CheckBox-suppressible ('never show again' and 'remind me later') popup that prompts users to encrypt their wallets,  write down their passphrase so they dont forget it, and present them with an option to download a wallet copy to any media source (cd, floppy, thumb drive, local file, memory chip/card, external device etc.)

What's a floppy? lol

My TRS-80 uses these: http://www.freeimages.co.uk/galleries/transtech/informationtechnology/slides/quarter_inch_disk.htm

I still got a bunch of them. They were an upgrade from the cassette drive. haha

My god, I haven't heard about a TRS-80 since the 70s. Since you're still using that stuff, I'll loan you my old Winchester hard drive. It's 5mb and about the size of a briefcase. lol

haha, I'd probably need to track down an interface to use it. How much did that cost when it was new?

[R2D221]

I would like normal people with low spec computers. {CPU/GPU's} to be once again able to mine Bitcoins. It should have built in code to detect mining farms and throttle/reduce their income, to make it less viable for them to mine on such a big scale. {ASIC proof}

Then, companies like DELL can pre-install mining software with every computer the sell, to be enabled by the user, when the computer is not in use. {The user will then get rewarded for sharing his CPU/GPU to help with mining and he can pay his electricity bill automatically} In a perfect world, this should cover his full bill, with the added electricity he used for normal use and the extra electricity he used for the mining.  

This will put some money back into the pockets of MANY people, who are in debt and enable projects where electricity costs are a issue and also help with sustaining Bitcoin mining.

We can just dream.    

The idea is very interesting and I think you are trying to tackle a very important problem, but building specialized machines (ASICs) in order to solve a PoW-based task will always be possible, I believe :-/

Even if you have ASIC-resistance, big companies can buy thousands of CPUs and have mining farms as well. It may not be as efficient as ASIC, but they will certainly have an advantage over the common users.

common users in this case, would have a bit of breath, because they could use gpu, which are far better than cpu, they will still be behind, but they at least will put a dent on it

If GPU is viable, companies would use GPU instead. Same result: advantage for companies.

[QuestionAuthority]

I would add a CheckBox-suppressible ('never show again' and 'remind me later') popup that prompts users to encrypt their wallets,  write down their passphrase so they dont forget it, and present them with an option to download a wallet copy to any media source (cd, floppy, thumb drive, local file, memory chip/card, external device etc.)

What's a floppy? lol

My TRS-80 uses these: http://www.freeimages.co.uk/galleries/transtech/informationtechnology/slides/quarter_inch_disk.htm

I still got a bunch of them. They were an upgrade from the cassette drive. haha

My god, I haven't heard about a TRS-80 since the 70s. Since you're still using that stuff, I'll loan you my old Winchester hard drive. It's 5mb and about the size of a briefcase. lol

haha, I'd probably need to track down an interface to use it. How much did that cost when it was new?

I think I purposely blocked that out of my memory. I want to say $500 but I'm not really sure anymore. 

[R2D221]

Even if you have ASIC-resistance, big companies can buy thousands of CPUs and have mining farms as well. It may not be as efficient as ASIC, but they will certainly have an advantage over the common users.

common users in this case, would have a bit of breath, because they could use gpu, which are far better than cpu, they will still be behind, but they at least will put a dent on it

Just imagine this scenario:

You have a bakery. You make cakes and pastries and stuff, and sell it in your town. Now try to compete with Hostess, or Bimbo. Obviously, no matter what kind of equipment you buy, you will never be able to even slightly affect their business. Even if there were laws that prevented them to use industrial ovens and had to use home appliances, they still have the capacity of buy thousands of them and hire enough people to still be operating way ahead of you.

There's no such thing as designing a system where minorities get an advantage, because whatever minorities can do, companies can do it ×1000.

[Amph]

I would like normal people with low spec computers. {CPU/GPU's} to be once again able to mine Bitcoins. It should have built in code to detect mining farms and throttle/reduce their income, to make it less viable for them to mine on such a big scale. {ASIC proof}

Then, companies like DELL can pre-install mining software with every computer the sell, to be enabled by the user, when the computer is not in use. {The user will then get rewarded for sharing his CPU/GPU to help with mining and he can pay his electricity bill automatically} In a perfect world, this should cover his full bill, with the added electricity he used for normal use and the extra electricity he used for the mining.  

This will put some money back into the pockets of MANY people, who are in debt and enable projects where electricity costs are a issue and also help with sustaining Bitcoin mining.

We can just dream.    

The idea is very interesting and I think you are trying to tackle a very important problem, but building specialized machines (ASICs) in order to solve a PoW-based task will always be possible, I believe :-/

Even if you have ASIC-resistance, big companies can buy thousands of CPUs and have mining farms as well. It may not be as efficient as ASIC, but they will certainly have an advantage over the common users.

common users in this case, would have a bit of breath, because they could use gpu, which are far better than cpu, they will still be behind, but they at least will put a dent on it

If GPU is viable, companies would use GPU instead. Same result: advantage for companies.

ok, but gpu aren't that efficient like asic(and are more bulky, produce more heat ecc...), they cannot reach the same hash, thus the diff won't rise so fast like now, this mean more chance for small miners to compete, this is the real difference

also they are produced by company(amd and nvidia) that aren't interested in mining, which rsult in a low production cycle, again another reason why the hash will stay low for a greater amount of time

Even if you have ASIC-resistance, big companies can buy thousands of CPUs and have mining farms as well. It may not be as efficient as ASIC, but they will certainly have an advantage over the common users.

common users in this case, would have a bit of breath, because they could use gpu, which are far better than cpu, they will still be behind, but they at least will put a dent on it

Just imagine this scenario:

You have a bakery. You make cakes and pastries and stuff, and sell it in your town. Now try to compete with Hostess, or Bimbo. Obviously, no matter what kind of equipment you buy, you will never be able to even slightly affect their business. Even if there were laws that prevented them to use industrial ovens and had to use home appliances, they still have the capacity of buy thousands of them and hire enough people to still be operating way ahead of you.

There's no such thing as designing a system where minorities get an advantage, because whatever minorities can do, companies can do it ×1000.

the point is the diff won't rise at the same speed as having a new asic every 3 months(just an example)

[jaberwock]

I would like that 10% of all mined coins would be transferred to a wallet of my choice.




More seriously:

make double spends with 0 confirmation harder to detect with default software's, so accept 0 confirmation transactions would be more secure even for people with less knowledge.  

[NeuroticFish]

I would ask for a change in block rewarding system - to make the block rewards difficulty dependent.

The big farms only dump coins to the market anyway, let's discourage their future growth.

[ensurance982]

I would add a CheckBox-suppressible ('never show again' and 'remind me later') popup that prompts users to encrypt their wallets,  write down their passphrase so they dont forget it, and present them with an option to download a wallet copy to any media source (cd, floppy, thumb drive, local file, memory chip/card, external device etc.)

What's a floppy? lol

My TRS-80 uses these: http://www.freeimages.co.uk/galleries/transtech/informationtechnology/slides/quarter_inch_disk.htm

I still got a bunch of them. They were an upgrade from the cassette drive. haha

That could actually be one of the best ways to store a Bitcoin wallet safely. No one will be able to read that disk these days Then again, these disks are rather soft and I wouldn't trust magnetic media with a Bitcoin wallet.

[Cryddit]

I have a little list....  

Pool mining resistance.  I want cryptographic proof that nobody can efficiently find hashes unless they have the key that can be used to spend the coinbase; this would insure that whoever finds the nonce has the power to spend the coinbase tx.  Pools would no longer be able to rely on cryptographic security to get their block payouts.  The easiest way to do it would be to add a required signature by the private key on the block header including nonce, and hash on the whole block header including the signature.  So without the key it would be impossible to evaluate the hash and see whether it falls below a target.

Fix the nonstandard implementation of Merkle trees.  The one we're using now could, in some very contrived circumstances, hash two non-identical blocks, with one containing duplicates of some transactions giving them the same Merkle root.  Nobody's figured out any way to make an attack using this property, but it's still a stupid property for a crypto primitive to have. Given the possibility of new combinations of bugs to combine it with in the future, eventually somebody might.

Change from secp256k1 to curve25519.  Secp256k1 is not subject to any attacks - yet - but has properties that suggest possibly poor resistance to some types of analysis.  Curve25519 is better studied and so far has shown no signs that a weakness might exist.

Fix the bug that makes all m-of-n signatures consume an extra value off the stack when evaluating scripts.

Bigger nonce space in the block header.  This business with 'extranonce' in the first transaction is stupid.  

The wire protocol should consistently use network byte ordering.  

[maku]

I would change than bitcoin would be mined slightly faster. I doubt that delaying the time of mining final bitcoin to year 2140 will be good in the long run. Time is of the essence here and our technology is changing so rapidly that in next 20 years we could have totally new leading cryptocurrency because someone will invite new internet protocol or something...

[R2D221]

because someone will invite new internet protocol or something...

We have a new internet protocol. It's called IPv6. It was officially released in 2012, and as of April 2015, it's used by roughly 5% of connected devices, according to Google.

But, if you connect via IPv6, do you notice? Well, no. These technologies operate on “layers”, and the IP layer is below the Bitcoin layer. Even if we were on IPv8, it wouldn't affect Bitcoin's protocol a bit.

[gentlemand]

I would change than bitcoin would be mined slightly faster. I doubt that delaying the time of mining final bitcoin to year 2140 will be good in the long run. Time is of the essence here and our technology is changing so rapidly that in next 20 years we could have totally new leading cryptocurrency because someone will invite new internet protocol or something...

Inflation will be borderline nominal in 10-15 years though. Economics is a considerably more sluggish arena than technology. So far Satoshi made some eerily prescient decisions. One of them is probably realising how long it would take for a new economic concept to take root. You need to maintain that incentive to support its creation for quite some time. The move to pure tx fees for miners will have to be very gradual too.

[r3wt]

because someone will invite new internet protocol or something...

We have a new internet protocol. It's called IPv6. It was officially released in 2012, and as of April 2015, it's used by roughly 5% of connected devices, according to Google.

But, if you connect via IPv6, do you notice? Well, no. These technologies operate on “layers”, and the IP layer is below the Bitcoin layer. Even if we were on IPv8, it wouldn't affect Bitcoin's protocol a bit.

we also have SPDY 3.1 and HTTP 2.0 but who's counting.