Is it true Bitcoin can be modified/updated/changed?

[Michael Robinson]

I thought I read somewhere that Bitcoin was malleable, meaning it is not simply "set in stone".  That if an idea came to make it better, and the community agreed to accept the change, they could simply update it.

If so, doesn't this make the "a new and better cryptocurrency could destroy Bitcoin" idea false?  If a new cryptocurrency did get created that everyone agreed was better than Bitcoin for any reason, and the Bitcoin community agreed, couldn't Bitcoin simply be updated? 

[Akka]

I thought I read somewhere that Bitcoin was malleable, meaning it is not simply "set in stone".  That if an idea came to make it better, and the community agreed to accept the change, they could simply update it.

If so, doesn't this make the "a new and better cryptocurrency could destroy Bitcoin" idea false?  If a new cryptocurrency did get created that everyone agreed was better than Bitcoin for any reason, and the Bitcoin community agreed, couldn't Bitcoin simply be updated? 

There are some protocol rules that are very hard to change, meaning that changing them would result in a hard fork. If only one Node would not agree to it it would result in 2 Bitcoins existing (at least for some time).

But yes, if users agree, basically any change could be implemented. But it is virtually impossible to get all to agree to a change.

[monbux]

I thought I read somewhere that Bitcoin was malleable, meaning it is not simply "set in stone".  That if an idea came to make it better, and the community agreed to accept the change, they could simply update it.

If so, doesn't this make the "a new and better cryptocurrency could destroy Bitcoin" idea false?  If a new cryptocurrency did get created that everyone agreed was better than Bitcoin for any reason, and the Bitcoin community agreed, couldn't Bitcoin simply be updated? 

There are some protocol rules that are very hard to change, meaning that changing them would result in a hard fork. If only one Node would not agree to it it would result in 2 Bitcoins existing (at least for some time).

But yes, if users agree, basically any change could be implemented. But it is virtually impossible to get all to agree to a change.

Just a question, you mean all users of bitcoin?  If so, that sounds highly impossible, and even if it did happen, do we just sign a petition or something and send it to the current bitcoin team?

[Akka]

I thought I read somewhere that Bitcoin was malleable, meaning it is not simply "set in stone".  That if an idea came to make it better, and the community agreed to accept the change, they could simply update it.

If so, doesn't this make the "a new and better cryptocurrency could destroy Bitcoin" idea false?  If a new cryptocurrency did get created that everyone agreed was better than Bitcoin for any reason, and the Bitcoin community agreed, couldn't Bitcoin simply be updated? 

There are some protocol rules that are very hard to change, meaning that changing them would result in a hard fork. If only one Node would not agree to it it would result in 2 Bitcoins existing (at least for some time).

But yes, if users agree, basically any change could be implemented. But it is virtually impossible to get all to agree to a change.

Just a question, you mean all users of bitcoin?  If so, that sounds highly impossible, and even if it did happen, do we just sign a petition or something and send it to the current bitcoin team?

If some change where implemented that violates the current protocol rules (fe. Block reward, Number of Transactions per Block, etc.) all Nodes that still have the current version would reject each Block of the new Version as invalid. Therefore we would have 2 Bitcoin Networks as long as there are users that run Nodes with different protocol rules. Probably one of the two would die out sooner or later.

Also a change could for Example be implemented like this:

Miner with the new version "mark" their Block to show they have the new Version (Block Version). No changes are active yet. As soon as >90% of all Blocks found are marked the Change activates.

[Mork]

Just a question, you mean all users of bitcoin?  If so, that sounds highly impossible, and even if it did happen, do we just sign a petition or something and send it to the current bitcoin team?

The majority of the network.
If there's a hard fork, there will be 2 block chains, one old, one new. The chain where the most miners (by hash/s) are working on, will be the new one, as it is (will get) the longest chain.
If the users (network) do not agree and continue on the old chain (e.g. by using the old client), there will be no hard fork, as the old chain will be longer.
At least that's what I think.

There has been at least one hard fork before, when there was a bug in the bitcoin client.

[Akka]

Just a question, you mean all users of bitcoin?  If so, that sounds highly impossible, and even if it did happen, do we just sign a petition or something and send it to the current bitcoin team?

The majority of the network.
If there's a hard fork, there will be 2 block chains, one old, one new. The chain where the most miners (by hash/s) are working on, will be the new one, as it is (will get) the longest chain.
If the users (network) do not agree and continue on the old chain (e.g. by using the old client), there will be no hard fork, as the old chain will be longer.
At least that's what I think.

There has been at least one hard fork before, when there was a bug in the bitcoin client.

No, miners have no power over this. As every client with the old version would reject Blocks from miners with the new version as invalid. No mater how long their chain gets.

Miners can not enforce any rule changes over Bitcoin users.

[hieroglyph]

As previously stated there can be small changes to fix problems along the way but nothing major.  I think this is one of those if it isn't broke then don't fix it situations.

[bitcoin_UK]

The actual structure of how bitcoin works can't be changed, that's the beauty of bitcoin. It can't be altered for anyones advantage although maybe messed with by people that have a lot of money!

Don't believe what you hear, bitcoin is strong, it's owned by the people, for the people.

[tampazeus]

I thought I read somewhere that Bitcoin was malleable, meaning it is not simply "set in stone".  That if an idea came to make it better, and the community agreed to accept the change, they could simply update it.

If so, doesn't this make the "a new and better cryptocurrency could destroy Bitcoin" idea false?  If a new cryptocurrency did get created that everyone agreed was better than Bitcoin for any reason, and the Bitcoin community agreed, couldn't Bitcoin simply be updated? 

There are some protocol rules that are very hard to change, meaning that changing them would result in a hard fork. If only one Node would not agree to it it would result in 2 Bitcoins existing (at least for some time).

But yes, if users agree, basically any change could be implemented. But it is virtually impossible to get all to agree to a change.

Majority wins I guess, and minority has to accept or going its way

[Tposate]

Indeed, we've already had some hard forks in the past, and there will be more in the future
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist

[hoalways]

Will there be any possibility to change our bitcoin address in the future?

Will there be any change in the blockchain?

I have lot of questions. However, can someone explain it in brief considering I'm a newbie.