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

[franky1]

all i read is doomad having no clue and just insulting..

typical
may he spend more time researching and less time insulting, he may see what real consensus is, and not the twisted mistaken version taught to him by his buddies.

Bitcoin is not a democracy any more It doesn't have elections any more.  There isn't a "vote", as such any more.  

fixed that for you

its getting real easy to spot whos bubbies with who because theres the obvious repeat same misguided concepts taught to them by certain people.
one day they will learn about consensus.

one major reason i know doomad has no clue about consensus is because he and his chums do not believe in the need of byzantine generals(decentralisation of power). they believe there only needs one general(centralisation), and a bunch of loyal soldiers(distribution). they just have not really grasped the concept of decentralisation.... or maybe its not of commercial interest to them to want bitcoin decentralised anymore, and instead just distributed soldiers of loyalty following one general

one day they will learn about consensus.
but until then all i see is people trying devilishly hard to not let people talk about the "dev state" situation thats has arisen since 2013+

seems a particular buddy group appear to want to defend "dev state" and not protect bitcoin network security of a community
well give it a while and when "dev state" move on, retire, get hired on other projects. i wonder what doomad and his chums would do next..
as i think these fanboys really dont understand that devs are not immortal and favouring "dev state" more then the bitcoin network is their flaw

goodnight.

[1715300385]

1715300385

[1715300385]

1715300385

[1715300385]

1715300385

[Garenjohnnytre]

 i think if i'm in the technology 2.0. i hope the safety is improved. i'm very hate the hackers

[libert19]

Even after lightning network, Bitcoin is slow compared to other cryptos. So I would change block times, transaction fees and transaction throughput.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe anyone can make a pull request from Core's repository?

cores repository
(facepalm)
so you have already resigned your mindset that "dev state" are king... ok got that

Then how should the Core developers organize themselves to develop the protocol? No public repositories?

as for anyone can make a pull request.
have you not looked at the moderation
remember you yourself believe and have been of approval that not everyone should be allowed to
here ill remind you.. as it seems you and your buddies have short memories when it comes to flip flopping to prtend its opn and then flop to say its best left as moderated and closed.

But isn't it true? Anyone can make a pull request.

I am of the position that anyone can propose ideas. But the stupid, and less-competent ideas will not be accepted.

We need competent developers who have the specialized skills to maintain Bitcoin. People who can decide what ideas are good, and what should be rejected, because there are a lot of stupid ideas made, and only a few good ones.

i know you will argue that bitcoin is "open" but any boss can say their door is always open and then say make an appointment and knock before entering or simply go away not now.
even a open door can ask you to wipe your feet before entering
.. oops i mean 'Nack'

again if you understood consensus as it was in 2009 2013. just having code proposals and nodes on the network does not mean jack until majority activation. ill say it again ACTIVATION
so why so afraid of a non "dev state".. why so adamant of wanting a "dev state"?

but the issue is not so much about "dev state" its more so that "dev state" can add code without consensus by either mandating people opposing off the network or by (their buzzword) inflight upgrades, which is in technical terms a trojan backdoor.
its like having autoupdate with no way of setting it to manual or dont upgrade. which is different to how bitcoin was in 2009-2013.

prime example needed? bech32 addresses came about in 2018. was there a consensus vote on it?
what other address formats and op codes will get activated without a consensus...
ever thought bugs can be introduced...
even care about bugs being introduced?

Who activated the changes?

put it another way. imagine if a dev that was not "dev state" was to add stuff without consensus.. i can guarantee you would be up in arms screaming that something was done without dev state.

prime example needed? research REKT

again dont go trying to use a bitcoin ethos of 2009-2013 and pretend things are the same now
and dont be like your flip flop chums who flip flop to say its open and then flop flip to say "dev state" should not be told what to do and not do because they are king.

atleast take some time and choose which foot ur gonna stand on before you trip yourself up like your flip flop chums do.
because right now you are standing on the foot of wanting everything to go through the "dev state" repository.

Are they really the king? I believe they are in charge of development because they are competent.

[KingScorpio]

you cant create a bitcoin 2.0 success just with tech upgrades

[btyco]

Transaction speed is one major factor that is stopping widespread adoption. Then we wouldn't have these shitcoin forks dumping the market, and less altcoins claiming to be the new bitcoin

[DooMAD]

all i read is doomad having no clue and just insulting..

typical
may he spend more time researching and less time insulting, he may see what real consensus is, and not the twisted mistaken version taught to him by his buddies.

Ah yes, the inevitable point in the thread where Franky1 thinks telling people to research stuff will somehow make them agree with him.  

Your years spent studying and researching Bitcoin somehow led you to see tyranny.  Mine, freedom.  I can't even begin to imagine how you think you've learned anything and would be in a position to teach anyone anything when you look at freedom and see tyranny.  You see conspiracy where there is none.  Your brain isn't wired up right.  People could research Bitcoin for the rest of their natural life and still not perceive things the way your special mind does.  Why not tell people to research the moon landings being fake?  Maybe you can call that a social drama and see if it helps your fruitless cause.

Bitcoin is not a democracy any more It doesn't have elections any more.  There isn't a "vote", as such any more.  

fixed that for you

How can you fix it by saying something that is demonstrably untrue?  If you want elections, stick with the corrupt and bought system that still calls itself Democracy, when in practice, it's usually Plutocracy or Kleptocracy instead.  Consensus > Voting.  Bitcoin has never and will never be a democracy.

Screw your pathetic and antiquated notions of "voting".  Voting is centralised.  Voting is choosing a puppet to speak for you and then fail to do all the things they promised they would do in their manifesto.  Voting is choosing a middleman from a list of worthless middlemen.  Voting leads to corruption and lobbying.  The real power then stems from the money used to fund the election campaigns.  What we have is people freely expressing their will through code without a middleman.  We don't need people to speak for us.  We don't need to choose middlemen.  We aren't susceptible to corruption and simply buying the laws wealthy people want.  Why do you want to change what we have into something worse?

its getting real easy to spot whos bubbies with who because theres the obvious repeat same misguided concepts taught to them by certain people.
one day they will learn about consensus.

You are the misguided one.  You say that "up" is actually "down" and then when everyone asks what's wrong with you, you tell them there's a conspiracy to hide the truth from them.  

one major reason i know doomad has no clue about consensus is because he and his chums do not believe in the need of byzantine generals(decentralisation of power). they believe there only needs one general(centralisation), and a bunch of loyal soldiers(distribution). they just have not really grasped the concept of decentralisation.... or maybe its not of commercial interest to them to want bitcoin decentralised anymore, and instead just distributed soldiers of loyalty following one general

Not only do you keep trying to change the meaning of words like "consensus" and "decentralisation", but you keep forgetting about permissionless.  You avoid the word like the plague.  Probably because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Bitcoin does not have a General.  No single person or group is "in charge".  But yet you argue that one group is in charge and then expect people to take you seriously?  People have eyes.  They can see that you are wrong.  Just because 9000+ nodes happen to be running software made by one dev team, it does not mean that dev team are now "controlling the network".  If that dev team did something users didn't like in their next version, people might not run that software in future.  

one day they will learn about consensus.

You mean "Emergent Consensus", right?  That hilarious part where you try to pretend the type of consensus you want to see in Bitcoin just so happens to be the type of consensus that even the people who invented it can't agree on it and don't actually use it.  Because it's crap.  

I've clearly demonstrated my understanding of consensus.  All you've demonstrated is that you think consensus means "I can tell this group of developers they shouldn't propose new BIPs and we all have to agree on what code to write before it's even written and consensus is democracy when it isn't and Bitcoin used to have voting when it didn't and let's make up some more complete nonsense and tell people to research it even though it isn't true and forget what punctuation is and remember to mention social drama and blah blah blah typical Franky1 post blah blah kardashians", etc.

[Timetwister]

Nothing, BTC is perfect as it is.

[franky1]

I believe anyone can make a pull request from Core's repository?

cores repository
(facepalm)
so you have already resigned your mindset that "dev state" are king... ok got that

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.

by you thinking everything has to be done via "dev state" organising the development is again you and your chums not even understanding consensus in regards to the byzantine generals theorum
it seems you and your chums are stuck in the mindset of single controlbase of a single general HQ. and happy with it

but i do laugh that doomad thinks permissionless payments is his excuse to avoid understanding consensus of protocol (2 different things)
and then flip flops to also want LN (permissioned payment)

again for the many many many topics he does not understand
devs can write reams of code. they can write it how they like, they can even write it on the leg of a thai bride they contract with,, but the ACTIVATION should not be done in the tyranical way of 2017.

doomad would be in uproar if a non "dev state" team done what occured in 2017

but as always lets just let doomad insult and flipflop.
doomad doesnt want to understand a decentralised network that solves byzantine generals issue. he is happy in a world of only understanding single general and sheep loyal soldiers

thought if he spent the last few months actually doing research beyond his chums he would have learned a few truth about the real situation and not the diatribe spoon fed to him by his chums wanting their roadmap even at a cost of throwing people off the network to force their plan into action.

[gentlemand]

Even after lightning network, Bitcoin is slow compared to other cryptos. So I would change block times, transaction fees and transaction throughput.

A lot of the time that's because they're less secure and less stressed.

I'd be more inclined to buy into all of these claims once they'd been maxed out for months without buckling while countless vultures circled. They may look rather less convincing then.

And you can't really get any faster than a lightning network. The question is how usable it's going to be and how many people use it.

[franky1]

And you can't really get any faster than a lightning network. The question is how usable it's going to be and how many people use it.

the lightning network is about as much a "bitcoin feature" as coinbase.com is.
its a separate system for multiple coin utility involving vaulting up funds with another entity to then use a payment system of 12 decimal values, in an unaudited, non blockchain, non byzantine generals solving dataset system.

its not a bitcoin scaling solution, its a take user utility of the bitcoin network away from the bitcoin network and let users use another network.
much like how 19th century gold got vaulted up and people ended up playing with promissory notes that were redeemable by the co-signer that created the promissory note(know known as banks)

LN will end up requiring factories to both be watchtowers of channels and masternodes monitoring SEVERAL chains
which does not actually solve the issues of fullnodes.
also while average joe people are playing with 12 decimal payments on cellphone lite wallets, hoping to get rich routing thier own funds as a hotpotato game. in exchange for millibit income. will end up having to pay factories to be the entry/exit node.
and if you think average joe will be the full node factories. well goodluck with that hope.

the "dev state" know of LN issues and are happy to admit it has problems
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570
problems which are mentioned in the first few sconds as problems they cant/wont find solutions to

we need to concentrate on bitcoins network utility, not creating side-gates to push people off network.
pushing people off network is the opposite of what bitcoiners should be doing. but as a few "dev state" supporters are showing, thats the agenda. dont like what "dev state" do F**k off, seems to be the mantra

[squatter]

And you can't really get any faster than a lightning network. The question is how usable it's going to be and how many people use it.

the lightning network is about as much a "bitcoin feature" as coinbase.com is.
its a separate system for multiple coin utility involving vaulting up funds with another entity to then use a payment system of 12 decimal values, in an unaudited, non blockchain, non byzantine generals solving dataset system.

We get it -- LN is a different protocol. What's wrong with that?

Coins are locked up with a smart contract. You're trying to imply LN involves trust when it doesn't in any way whatsoever. The whole point is to leverage Bitcoin's blockchain without bogging it down with unnecessary throughput. I haven't seen a compelling argument as to why the security model isn't sound.

its not a bitcoin scaling solution, its a take user utility of the bitcoin network away from the bitcoin network and let users use another network.
much like how 19th century gold got vaulted up and people ended up playing with promissory notes that were redeemable by the co-signer that created the promissory note(know known as banks)

Not true at all. Banks and promissory notes involve trust. LN doesn't.

[gesdan]

hmm maybe if bitcoin 2.0 gibe us many many benefit i think it will be more good for us to make it happen. but if they dnont give us any benefit i think we can't do that

[franky1]

I haven't seen a compelling argument as to why the security model isn't sound.

here is the devs themselves. straight from the horses mouths
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

Not true at all. Banks and promissory notes involve trust. LN doesn't.

1. locking funds into a factory. is a smart contract involving trust that the factory didnt make a 2-of-3 smart contract with users under the pretence of it seeming as a 2-of-2 smart contract (trusting the factory doesnt hold 2 keys). as even schnorr is designed to hide how many are involved

2. the non blockchain 'payment' a factory then gives to a users channel is then done on trust. that while the user then plays with the channel payment which as a opening channel, but unaudited tx. the channel partner has to hope the factory is not also offering the same locked funds to another channel

3. channels have to trust that users wont play around because LN is not a byzantine generals solution network. people can play around with the nodes as there is no community to orphan/reject payments.

4. channels have to trust once closing session to get a factory to aggregate channels and eith broadcast out(unlock) or re-payment new open sessions.. that they will do. (LN operates as a need to be online and a need to sign for acceptance)
LN is not just a PUSH tx model.

...
anyone that only wants to view the utopian hope. and not critically scrutinise the reality. is not a person that cares about security. but just views things on trust

[Wind_FURY]

I believe anyone can make a pull request from Core's repository?

cores repository
(facepalm)
so you have already resigned your mindset that "dev state" are king... ok got that

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.

by you thinking everything has to be done via "dev state" organising the development is again you and your chums not even understanding consensus in regards to the byzantine generals theorum

Byzantine generals? How did we get there? Hahaha.

Bitcoin's development would not have reached where it is today if it wasn't organized. What you propose is chaos. Try running a project without an group of competent, lead developers. See how far that project will go.

[franky1]

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.
by not understanding the importance of byzantine generals theory in regards to bitcoin. then your other topic about "what bitcoin gave us".. is a hollow topic you started, because it seems you have not grasped it enough

by your preference of control and centralised groups, and non blockchain networks. its pretty clear you have not really looked into what bitcoin and blockchain is really about.

but i guess your chums never wanted to tell you about the whole history of bitcoin/blockchain and what bitcoin solved.. because your chums wanted you to concentrate on the centralising move people off the network mindset of recent years

and by the way before you have your predictable rebuttal.. distribution of compatible loyalty is not the same as decentralised consensus

but if you really at all care about bitcoins security. you will find doing some independent research outside of your buddy group will benefit you.

and the reason i kep saying do your own research is purely so that you cant claim i am spoon-feeding you biases..
its up to you to decide if you care/desire want to know whats real.
and best way to do that is do your own research independently without buddies with spoons feeding you

[franky1]

 Voting is choosing a puppet to speak for you and then fail to do all the things they promised

so instead you prefer having one puppet.. ok got that
so instead you prefer no choice... ok got that
so instead you prefer that no one can put their hand up that puppets ass and make it dance.. ok got that

again your advocating tyranny where you just want that sngle puppet to do what it wants and not have to listen to the community..
.. yep i got that

i know your mindset. i understood your mindset months ago.
the thing is.. your flip flops show you have not yet either:
admitted your own desire to yourself consciously
or you really do want tyranny but you dont want the sheep waking up and uprising

well goodluck

[dewildance]

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)?

There is a lot to be improved, of course, but how much of the community have to think about it. For example energy consumption? It would be nice if there was something about it. But this is unfortunately not about the Bitcoin community.

[franky1]

now that the social drama of insults is put aside.

letss concentrate on the topic.

how would a rebirth of bitcoin look if the community got all the things they wanted.
1. multiple dev groups of independence who could all offer new features without REKT/mandated dilution efforts, but instead true consensus
2. concentrating on lean thin transactions of pushing funds to others without bloating via smart contracts(visa doesnt do smart contracts after all)
3. the limitation of transactions per block would be more of a demand/growth dynamic. rather than a reduce usage by moving offnetwork
4. not letting users have so much tx bloat that they could fill any block/sig limit with just 5 transactions
5. a fee mechanism that does not cause network wide increase in fee's for everyone due to one person spamming..
but instead causes the spammer to spend more if the spammer wants to bloat a block or spend every 10 minutes

the silly thing is the whole "cant buy coffee with bitcoin"
using the LN network involves locking funds . opening several channels, thereby splitting up the value into different channels just to HOPE for good connectivity. then HOPE the channel partners are online to authorise the funds hops. and hope other people dont route through you and take your balance before you get to spend it yourself.
OR
if you plan to deposit $60 worth of btc to cover a fortnight of coffee and a few sandwiches in LN.. just use BTC to buy $60 of giftcards

describing the easy solution to coffee and also raising point 2.. over complicating and adding bloated features doesnt help. its easier to just keep things lean and simple and just have a open payment network that just openly pays.

the silly thing about the whole "energy consumption"
more energy is wasted keeping bottles of coca-cola chilled, than bitcoin. bitcoin miners have already made the watts per hash very very efficient.
if w were to CPU mine bitcoin at todays hashrate. it would require TRILLIONS of cpu's, billions of GPU but only a few million ASICS. and the power consumption of an ASIC is only ~3pc's
millions*3 is better than trillions
i can guarantee you that the number of computers in bank cashier counters, ATMS, bank call centres, Visa warehouses, bank HQ, wall street surpasses bitcoins electric utility

[incomefromcoins]

Lightening network and fees of transactions these are the major concern for new bitcoin version hopefully we will see these two important factors in upcoming versions