If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change?

[franky1]

flip:

because it's up to users if they want to run that code.

flop:

Consensus > Voting.  Bitcoin has never and will never be a democracy.

flop:

Screw your pathetic and antiquated notions of "voting".

flop:

Bitcoin is not a democracy.  It doesn't have elections.  There isn't a "vote"

flop:

there's no practical way to enforce it.  There is no code to prevent softforks

No amount of you calling them "inflight updates" instead of softforks will change reality to prevent them from happening in future.  There isn't code you can "strip out" to prevent "backdoor activate or F**k off".  What you want is not possible.

yes doomad, i noticed you deleted your posts to hide your dictatorship supporting rants.. and your flip flops. but you missed many

real funny thing. in your posts all you ever done was tell me what i shouldnt be doing. that i shouldnt discuss a certain topic, that i should not say x or y. and how if i wrote code how ud be the first to rekt me. and if you knew of a way early on to discourage me from being involved in bitcoin. you would use it..

and all i done was ask you to independently research a few things, without you being spoonfed info from certain people

good evening and goodnight. may you enjoy your social drama. just remember. if you dont like things i discuss there is always an ignore button. and as a reminder you cant try playing the victim of a bite when you were the one poking the bear

[1715282894]

1715282894

[1715282894]

1715282894

[1715282894]

1715282894

[1715282894]

1715282894

[DooMAD]

flip:

because it's up to users if they want to run that code.

flop:

Consensus > Voting.  Bitcoin has never and will never be a democracy.

That's not a flip flop.  If you are incapable of comprehending the difference between voting and running code, I'm afraid there is nothing I can do to help you.  Democracy is weak.  Just like your "arguments".  

yes doomad, i noticed you deleted your posts to hide your dictatorship supporting rants.. and your flip flops. but you missed many

You are making shit up again.  You are a disgusting liar.  I had a notification on the 18th to say that one of my posts had been removed by a moderator.  I have deleted nothing.  

[Wind_FURY]

Byzantine generals? How did we get there? Hahaha.

if you dont understand then you have no clue about what blockchains solved in regards to decentralised money.

This is what you quoted from my post when you were barking about your so-called "dev-state", and the Byzantine generals, which I do not get the connection,

Then how should the Core developers organize themselves to develop the protocol? No public repositories?
.....
Are they really the king? I believe they are in charge of development because they are competent.

How did you arrive from the "dev-state" to the Byzantine generals? Is it because there was a word "king"? Haha.

bitcoin 2009-2013 was designed so that there was no "general"(singular)
cypherpunks for decades were having issues of making digital money in a way that did not require a general(singular) and instead where generals(plural) had an equal playing field where consensus would form majority agreement

Sorry but I believe this is the use of the term "Byzantine Generals" problem. Because from all the Bitcoin texts I read, whenever that term is used in Bitcoin, it talks about how Proof of Work has solved the "Byzantine Generals" problem because it enables the network to reach a "truth" that everyone agrees upon without trusting each other or a central authority.

[bosta20]

At this point, as masterfully as Bitcoin was created, it has some limitations of course. 

My question is:  Could it be done better, or is it just matter of trading one feature for another (i.e. speed for decentralization)?

Wow! Nice thought! To personally, if would have a chance to make bitcoin 2.0.. .i will totally make it proof of stake! Currently we use so much power to keep Bitcoin alive!

[franky1]

Sorry but I believe this is the use of the term "Byzantine Generals" problem. Because from all the Bitcoin texts I read, whenever that term is used in Bitcoin, it talks about how Proof of Work has solved the "Byzantine Generals" problem because it enables the network to reach a "truth" that everyone agrees upon without trusting each other or a central authority.

nope
the blocks are just a collection of data that conform to the law. blocks and their PoW hash do not solve who/what is giving out the orders of what the law should be

PoW is just hashing a hash

do i really need to say it again to you same group of chums that seem to not understand bitcoin...
research consensus..

put it this way many other coins are sha256 PoW.. do you think their blocks are acceptable to bitcoin because of PoW.
PoW is just about giving  block a strong identifier that can easily show if data has been edited.
its consensus that decide the rules of whats acceptable format everyone should follow

if you think pre 2009 unsolvable electronic peer to per cash systems solution was PoW then i guess your next rebuttal will probably be a total satoshi denial and you would probably say how its gregmaxwell, luke and pieters boss that actually invented bitcoin.. (the old "Adam Back solved it with 'hashcash'" mantra)

[DooMAD]

blocks and their PoW hash do not solve who/what is giving out the orders of what the law should be

There are no "orders".  Devs are producing code and people are choosing to run it of their own volition.  If they chose to run something else, the law would be different.  Running code is not a "vote" on what the law should be, it's literally enforcing the laws users want to enforce.  Not "what should be", but "what is".  We don't have to all come to an agreement on what the law "should be" before anyone writes the code.  People just select the code they want and start enforcing rules.  Enforcement may include rejecting blocks that don't conform to that law, or disconnecting other clients that don't conform to the law.  Those securing the chain decide what the law is.  Not devs.  

do i really need to say it again to you same group of chums that seem to not understand bitcoin...
research consensus..

 

Say it as many times as you like.  You are the one who doesn't understand consensus.  It's plain as day.  You've lied about it so many times that you've somehow managed to convince yourself it's the truth.  But it isn't.  It's not possible for us to "understand" the way you believe you do, because the things you're talking about only exist in your fevered imagination.  It's all in your head.  Your "understanding" is not based on anything real or tangible.  You only comprehend fairly tales and are totally oblivious to how things actually are.  9000+ nodes are clearly in agreement on what consensus is, which means you are demonstrably wrong.  Reality doesn't lie.  That's your specialty.

[Wind_FURY]

Sorry but I believe this is the use of the term "Byzantine Generals" problem. Because from all the Bitcoin texts I read, whenever that term is used in Bitcoin, it talks about how Proof of Work has solved the "Byzantine Generals" problem because it enables the network to reach a "truth" that everyone agrees upon without trusting each other or a central authority.

nope
the blocks are just a collection of data that conform to the law. blocks and their PoW hash do not solve who/what is giving out the orders of what the law should be

PoW is just hashing a hash

do i really need to say it again to you same group of chums that seem to not understand bitcoin...
research consensus..

put it this way many other coins are sha256 PoW.. do you think their blocks are acceptable to bitcoin because of PoW.
PoW is just about giving  block a strong identifier that can easily show if data has been edited.
its consensus that decide the rules of whats acceptable format everyone should follow

if you think pre 2009 unsolvable electronic peer to per cash systems solution was PoW then i guess your next rebuttal will probably be a total satoshi denial and you would probably say how its gregmaxwell, luke and pieters boss that actually invented bitcoin.. (the old "Adam Back solved it with 'hashcash'" mantra)

Honestly, I do not know what you are talking about anymore. We were talking about development and you were talking about the "dev-state" and the Byzantine Generals problem and how that in 2009 - 2013 the developers reached consensus and "reached the truth" without trusting each other?

What are you talking about?

[lwragga]

I'd definitely look into improving the environmental impact bitcoin has.  The total worldwide power consumption could run a small country I believe

[Nissan-GTR]

At this point, as masterfully as Bitcoin was created, it has some limitations of course. 

My question is:  Could it be done better, or is it just matter of trading one feature for another (i.e. speed for decentralization)?

Well, my answer will be according to the thread above not the reply respectively. If there would be a Bitcoin version, I think more authorized and reliable information towards the happenings with regards to Bitcoin for me ,it is important so that everyone is keeping in their own pathways, and not searching in the dark because of the current issues and process with relates to Bitcoin.