If you were to recreate Bitcoin to be better and more secure. How would you?

[R2D221]

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?

Why is protein folding ASIC-resistant?

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.

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).

[FifthGhostbuster]

If you were to recreate Bitcoin to be better and more secure. How would you?

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.

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

[Beliathon]

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

The hashrate distribution 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.

[ashour]

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.

[Amph]

If you were to recreate Bitcoin to be better and more secure. How would you?

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.

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

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

[BADecker]

Still waiting for a time when whole wallets can be encrypted is such a way that they can be transferred to another person, and the first person will not be able to use any of the addresses therein, and the second person will have control of the addresses to use as his. In addition, nobody else will be able to transfer a wallet he happens to find, unless he has the right PGP address for that wallet.

When this happens, Bitcoin will be deemed so strong and anonymous that investors will flock to mining.

Authorities will realize that they don't have any control anymore, so they will start shutting the big mining operations down. After this is done, they will start going door-to-door after all the bitcoins they can arrest people for holding.

[Beliathon]

Still waiting for a time when whole wallets can be encrypted is such a way that they can be transferred to another person, and the first person will not be able to use any of the addresses therein, and the second person will have control of the addresses to use as his. In addition, nobody else will be able to transfer a wallet he happens to find, unless he has the right PGP address for that wallet.

When this happens, Bitcoin will be deemed so strong and anonymous that investors will flock to mining.

Authorities will realize that they don't have any control anymore, so they will start shutting the big mining operations down. After this is done, they will start going door-to-door after all the bitcoins they can arrest people for holding.

Sounds like a good recipe for civil war 2.0.

[Eastfist]

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

[dhimasnk]

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

[ArticMine]

Cryptonote

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

Cleaning old transactions is not a requirement of Cryptonote. 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.

[R2D221]

I wouldn't change much other than setting the unit 'bits' as the default unit from the beginning to keep it simple (without even adding any other units in the client program).

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

[Q7]

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.

[Lauda]

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

Cleaning old transactions is not a requirement of Cryptonote. 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.

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.

Eliminate the possibility of a 51% attack...

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.

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

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.

[Amph]

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

[Lauda]

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.

There are people to which Bitcoin is not a thread. Spending money to eliminate a thread is rational.

[Amph]

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

[nachoig]

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

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.

[Amph]

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

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...

[onlyu]

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.

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.

[nachoig]

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...

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.