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

[Amph]

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.

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

[RitzBitzz]

Make 2-FA authentication a must have.

[Lauda]

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

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.

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...

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. 

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.

Like I said. Banks.

[Meuh6879]

I am trying to figure out if it is possible or if people even want a better BTC.

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.

[Amph]

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

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.

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.

[fox19891989]

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.

[nachoig]

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.

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).

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

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?

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

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.

[Cinnob0n]

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.

[dedmax]

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