Lets make Bitcoin 2.0 and combine all innovations of the past years into one!

[markm]

We already have fast transactions: GeistGeld.

merged mined alongside bitcoin so it does not detract from bitcoin's network security.

So for those who need fast blocks, that is already covered in the existing bunch of coins one merged mines all at once using the same hashing power so they all benefit at once.

Greater anonymity can also quite likely be done using the existing merged mined coins. Exchange around between GeistGeld, GRouPcoin, DeVCoin, CoiLedCoin, IXCoin, I0Coin, and NaMeCoin a few times and by the time you move back into bitcoin who will be able to track which bitcoins those had once been?

-MarkM-

[Spekulatius]

Hey, we can also add some "swag"  to the client like nibble and transaction comments. 

Increased Usability is of course important. Looking at web wallets and alternative desktop/mobile wallets like Bitcoin Spinner or MultiBit I guess user friendly application come naturally with time and interest. What is not so easy to change are features that are hard coded into the protocol, like long confirmation times or nearly impossible to memorize 9jHGG6545778GHVhgjzfkugJkhgJHgv7jgv6o456jgkfztgjv87654jgvfg6vkutf6ufJGVG6G65ghg cv6gvGHCGH6gvhgvc66533hfcfhcHFCh5hcFHC789HFCfc4gfc6 - kind of addresses.

BTC 2.0 could make those things more human friendly.

[ThickAsThieves]

Where can I send you a tip?

[not.you]

It shouldn't need saying but it does: no premine

[Spekulatius]

The problem is, you dont fix whats not broken.... Thats what your trying to do..

 BitCoin is not broken, does it have some flaws, sure. But because of where BitCoin is now and attention it has received worldwide, BitCoin will only be improved upon, a brand new coin will not work, its been tried before many many times.

 Someone will find flaws with a new one, and start yet another new coin, and again and again and again... Therefore it hasnt worked and wont work.

 BitCoin will stay on top, sorry to say but you are spending a lot of time on this with no possible future.

Im not trying to devise the final crypto coin to end all crypto coins. Like coinerd said, evolution is the driving force behind all improvement, just as well in the crypto zoo of alt chains.
My presumption is that alt chains will continue to spring up and evolve. What they reveil in novelty can be used to funnel into better, wholesome implementations of a crypto currency. As with many examples from technology, be it the automobile or an operating system, many single components provide value for themselves but are limited in isolation. Only when they are combined and arranged into a powerful aggregate they can really live up to their potentials when working in concert with other parts to get there faster.
The same principal applies to crypto money. Why would you have one chain that is good for fast transactions but cant handle more then 10 txs/s or one that is inherently less secure then a competitor for one reason or another? Why not trying to combine the strenghts of all of them?

[Spekulatius]

Where can I send you a tip?

Thx, Im not collecting tips as of yet. If you like this project, try to contribute in another way meanwhile or save your tips for later. Sry to turn you away atm but I feel it is months too early to start anything like that. Lets move forward with defining Principles first before attempting the next step.

[Spekulatius]

I started a thread along similar lines: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244792.0

It needs to confirm quickly.  I place the outside limit at about 2 minutes although I am sure there is room to debate it.  That wouldn't necessarily have to be 100% confirmation in 2 minutes but something like 95% or better.

I believe it should use SHA-256 for reasons I outline in my thread.

Sry, didnt find your thread first. I promise I spent some minutes with the search function before starting this thread!

If a new coin based on scrypt (or anything else for that matter) really takes off, it is not clear that some kind of ASIC gear monopoly would not develop around it.  It is a good bet that an ASIC monopoly on a new SHA-256 based currency would not happen.

I dont understand. In my opinion ASICs=Centralization by increased barriers of entry over CPU or GPU based hardware mining. So why would the formation of ASIC monopolies be unlikely with a new SHA-256 based currency??

Also pls consider that putting the hash rate to good use, e.g. Folding@Home or SETI would be out of the question with a SHA-256 based currency. If somehow there could be another use for all that computational power, alot would be improved. Maybe some mining algorithms could be devised that make it possible to secure the network and also cater for other tasks? Imagine an algorithm that is similar to popular problems, like Folding@Home or SETI algos and also suitable to secure the network. "Miners" could decide in what market it would be more lucrative to compete in. Maybe they direct 60% of hashing power towards the network and 40% towards FOLDING@HOME or they rent their computing power out to services that they can make use of while securing the network. Idk.

[not.you]

I started a thread along similar lines: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244792.0

It needs to confirm quickly.  I place the outside limit at about 2 minutes although I am sure there is room to debate it.  That wouldn't necessarily have to be 100% confirmation in 2 minutes but something like 95% or better.

I believe it should use SHA-256 for reasons I outline in my thread.

Sry, didnt find your thread first. I promise I spent some minutes with the search function before starting this thread!

No worries.  I really was just trying to get this same kind of conversation going.  You have managed to get more of it going than me so I am just as happy to have it in your thread.

If a new coin based on scrypt (or anything else for that matter) really takes off, it is not clear that some kind of ASIC gear monopoly would not develop around it.  It is a good bet that an ASIC monopoly on a new SHA-256 based currency would not happen.[/b]

I dont understand. In my opinion ASICs=Centralization by increased barriers of entry over CPU or GPU based hardware mining. So why would the formation of ASIC monopolies be unlikely with a new SHA-256 based currency??

Also pls consider that putting the hash rate to good use, e.g. Folding@Home or SETI would be out of the question with a SHA-256 based currency. If somehow there could be another use for all that computational power, alot would be improved. Maybe some mining algorithms could be devised that make it possible to secure the network and also cater for other tasks? Imagine an algorithm that is similar to popular problems, like Folding@Home or SETI algos and also suitable to secure the network. "Miners" could decide in what market it would be more lucrative to compete in. Maybe they direct 60% of hashing power towards the network and 40% towards FOLDING@HOME or they rent their computing power out to services that they can make use of while securing the network. Idk.

What I mean is that the other hashing algorithms have not been through the ASIC transition while SHA-256 is going through it now.  None of them is really ASIC proof.  So for any algorithm where ASICs do not now exist, the potential does exist for a small group or single entity to take over the currency with an ASIC monopoly later.  I do not believe this is any longer possible with SHA-256.  You are right that it is less accessible than GPU hashing but since there are multiple sources of SHA-256 ASICs for everyone (with the money) at this point, a single group or entity should not be able to get a majority of hashing power.

I have one final suggestion for this bitcoin 2.0.  Can we call them credits instead of coins?  I'm sick of all the endless new coins and its about time the sci-fi oriented among us get the currency referred to as credits that everyone has been talking about forever.  Plus it just sounds like the future. 

[Spekulatius]

A good question arises from the upper posts:

Should our Bitcoin 2.0 be as accessible and distributed as possible if it requires a mining algorithm or should, like LTC that can easily be mined with CPUs and GPUs using Scrypt instead of SHA-256? Or should we trade in distribution for security against 51% attacks, as ASICs provide for Bitcoin but are more centralized because they are controlled by far less individual users then CPUs, GPUs?
Do we need mining at all or should we pursue a Ripple-like approach?

[Lauda]

A good question arises from the upper posts:

Should our Bitcoin 2.0 be as accessible and distributed as possible if it requires a mining algorithm or should, like LTC that can easily be mined with CPUs and GPUs using Scrypt instead of SHA-256? Or should we trade in distribution for security against 51% attacks, as ASICs provide for Bitcoin but are more centralized because they are controlled by far less individual users then CPUs, GPUs?
Do we need mining at all or should we pursue a Ripple-like approach?

Ripple-like approach?

Definetly stick to mining.

[fran2k]

Some innovations/improvements to consider:
- Putting all that hashing power to better use Folding@Home

I think there's a easy way to implement these, rather than creating a silly useful blockchain.

The client should let you choose between your PoW/PoS mining and your Useful Mining. Then we need to figure out how to sell the GPU process service to the world, payments only accepted in this coin. The money paid will be distributed in the nodes that solved problems for the contractor, also will be a reward as usual from the new blocks. The price of the computational power can be regulated in some way based on the price of the coin and the reward per block..

[Spekulatius]

A good question arises from the upper posts:

Should our Bitcoin 2.0 be as accessible and distributed as possible if it requires a mining algorithm or should, like LTC that can easily be mined with CPUs and GPUs using Scrypt instead of SHA-256? Or should we trade in distribution for security against 51% attacks, as ASICs provide for Bitcoin but are more centralized because they are controlled by far less individual users then CPUs, GPUs?
Do we need mining at all or should we pursue a Ripple-like approach?

Ripple-like approach?

Definetly stick to mining.

Why not?
What are the benefits of mining versus a consensus based approach as with Ripple?

[kelsey]

Lets make Bitcoin 2.0 and combine all innovations of the past years into one!

I'd agree if there had been actually some decent innovations, but no, its not time yet.