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

[gentlemand]

If I were Satoshi 2.0, I would ensure that further fork of Bitcoin doesn't happen anymore. I know early adopters of bitcoin won't like my side of wishful thinking as that would prevent them from coming into unplanned wealth which forks have always provided for them.

If something is open source then it's forkable. That's how it works. If Bitcoin had been closed source we wouldn't be here today because people wouldn't have paid it the slightest attention. All forks do is prove that you can't replicate the trust and history that Bitcoin has earned.

[1714147013]

1714147013

[1714147013]

1714147013

[hatshepsut93]

I would've started off with Satoshis as the base unit, or units made up of 100 Satoshis. I know unit bias is stupid. People are stupid.

I'll leave all the other aspects to better educated people.

Satoshis are the base unit of Bitcoin, if you look at raw transactions, the amounts are represented in satoshis - on a protocol level there's no other units. 1 Bitcoin  = 100mil satoshis is just what your wallet displays for convenience, and it's trivial to implement any other units. Electrum has an option for displaying milibitcoins.

[gentlemand]

Satoshis are the base unit of Bitcoin, if you look at raw transactions, the amounts are represented in satoshis - on a protocol level there's no other units. 1 Bitcoin  = 100mil satoshis is just what your wallet displays for convenience, and it's trivial to implement any other units. Electrum has an option for displaying milibitcoins.

Then I should've rephrased that as prime reference unit.

It's too late now for enough people to agree to start dicking around with decimal points. For some reason stating that unit bias is a thing has always been shat on here. I disagree. I've seen it endlessly in the real world.

[socksserver3]

I think that everything is fine and I wouldn't have changed anything even if I could do this. I think that btc is the best coin and it is worth it. To my mind, it is better to leave everything as it is

[franky1]

What chain split?  post-fork,

you do know the "dev state" instigated the FORK/split.. bch came HOURS after, as a result of it

i cant actually believe you truly said that there was no split/fork and then mentioned the split/fork by saying there was no split/fork after the split/fork.
the split/fork was the the split/fork..
it got rid of the opposers so that the "dev state" would get their faked 100% loyalty count

put it this way
imagine you were in 2016 married.. but wanted to get involved with other people(networks). but only 35% of your family and friends thought it was a good idea to see other people(networks)

and so in march 2017 you decided things are not right no one is happy so you will get a divorce and you want the divorce finalised in august 2017 because you want to declare yourself 100% single by november so you can be involved with other people(networks)

so the divorce happened. you signed first and hours later your disgruntled parter went away to start their own life and now your able to declare you are 100% single and able to see other people(networks)

you are now saying there was no divorce after the divorce, and also saying that you have always been 100% single
(facepalm)

i truly think that squatter has just made the most stupid and ignorant myth to pretend that events didnt happen
sorry squatter but august 1st is august first. you cant hide it or pretend it didnt happen
even the "dev state" admit it happened. they gave it a few buzzwords. they even made hats which they wore to be proud of the divorce. they even changed their twitter account names to show which friend they would follow after the divorce.

p.s
i am neither a friend of the ex husband or ex wife of the previously united family. i just am someone that in this analogy is facepalming that the divorce occurred instead of all those involved communicating and coming to a compromise to keep it all united and move forward. rather than resorting to a divorce (which the "dev state" loudly and proudly call a bilateral split)

[FedorIzmailov]

To be honest, I wouldn’t change anything as I believe that Bitcoin is an ideal coin in the cryptocurrency market

[HopeHK]

[/quote]
All forks do is prove that you can't replicate the trust and history that Bitcoin has earned.
[/quote]

does appear that the forks have watered down the soup

[Janation]

To be honest, I wouldn’t change anything as I believe that Bitcoin is an ideal coin in the cryptocurrency market

It is not that "ideal" coin, you might be saying this because of its popularity and its price.

Don't get me wrong though, I will be doing the same as you. I will not be changing anything to the Bitcoin we have now as it might be looked at as a forked Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto has other plans for Bitcoin in which other forkers did but whatever angle you look at it, it is still a forked Bitcoin, an altcoin.

[squatter]

What chain split? Segwit reached the 95% threshold and activation went off without a hitch. There was never any network partition -- no orphaned chains post-fork, no lost transactions, nothing.

If you're talking about Bitcoin Cash, that was a new protocol that copied Bitcoin's ledger and launched at block height 478558. It was no more a "chain split" than any of the other dozens of Bitcoin forks (like Bitcoin Diamond and Super Bitcoin) were.

you do know the "dev state" instigated the FORK/split.. bch came HOURS after, as a result of it

i cant actually believe you truly said that there was no split/fork and then mentioned the split/fork by saying there was no split/fork after the split/fork.
the split/fork was the the split/fork..
it got rid of the opposers so that the "dev state" would get their faked 100% loyalty count

put it this way
imagine you were in 2016 married.. but wanted to get involved with other people(networks). but only 35% of your family and friends thought it was a good idea to see other people(networks)

and so in march 2017 you decided things are not right no one is happy so you will get a divorce and you want the divorce finalised in august 2017 because you want to declare yourself 100% single by november so you can be involved with other people(networks)

so the divorce happened. you signed first and hours later your disgruntled parter went away to start their own life and now your able to declare you are 100% single and able to see other people(networks)

you are now saying there was no divorce after the divorce, and also saying that you have always been 100% single
(facepalm)

i truly think that squatter has just made the most stupid and ignorant myth to pretend that events didnt happen

Your response was hilarious but the analogy doesn't work. It's not like a divorce. I still stand by my explanation.

Anyone is free to hard fork Bitcoin at will, just like Bitcoin Cash. That's why we saw so many similar spinoffs like Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Diamond. It's not a "chain split" because that implies a network partition, which implies a compatible protocol -- that's a mutual condition. In the case of a hard fork like Bitcoin Cash, the fork just gets ignored by Bitcoin.

i am neither a friend of the ex husband or ex wife of the previously united family. i just am someone that in this analogy is facepalming that the divorce occurred instead of all those involved communicating and coming to a compromise to keep it all united and move forward. rather than resorting to a divorce (which the "dev state" loudly and proudly call a bilateral split)

Compromise is not always possible. However, since these are permissionless and open source protocols, the next best thing when developers reach an impasse is to fork the protocol. That happens in FOSS development all the time.

I don't like calling it a "split" because that gives undeserved authority to those leaving the consensus. It makes it sound like a 50-50 split when in reality, all the Bitcoin forks (including Bitcoin Cash) have tiny user bases and ecosystems compared to Bitcoin.

[KingScorpio]

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)?

all pow token after bitcoin are doomed and will not be successful, internet money will stay however the pow trash will become insignificant

its therefore pointless to discuss about a "bitcoin 2.0"

we will also get into a stage where tech doesnt matter and is exchangable/upgradable and insignificant

[Wind_FURY]

I believe franky1 will love this topic, and will have a lot to say. Especially because of his perceived "incompetence" of the Core developers in maintaining the development of a secure, censorship-resistant cryptocurrency.

Who would be your candidates as lead developers of Bitcoin 2.0?

if you at least once got out of the mindset of needing 'candidates as lead developers' you would then see what decentralisation really means.

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.

Do you believe that all the stupid ideas made by incompetent people should be merged because there was a small group in the community who wanted it?

where anyone could then propose new features. and without mandated activation dates or coercion. devs actually think about the bitcoin communities needs and make code and release code that would get activated when the community see the true benefits of letting it activate.

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

[delphic]

Of course you can do better. I would change things. Bitcoin is far from perfect. For starters, I'd make it stable. That's the main thing he's not good at.

[SventraPapere]

I wouldn't do a second version of bitcoin. It wouldn't be bitcoin anymore. As a rule, the original first version is always better than all subsequent versions. I'd rather perfect the first and only version of bitcoin.

[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

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.

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?

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.

[prasad87]

I'd look to make the protocol scaleable and then LOCK it so that no dev can ruin it in the future.
This will in turn prevent the need to fork when devs become corrupt

[gentlemand]

I'd look to make the protocol scaleable and then LOCK it so that no dev can ruin it in the future.
This will in turn prevent the need to fork when devs become corrupt

This whole thing exists because it's a group effort. That works both ways. It stops the shit from being injected. It allows the best improvements to be integrated provided there's enough agreement. It also allows life saving fixes when they are unearthed.

If it could be 'locked' then no one would touch it. That implies control and centralisation, exactly not what people are looking for.

[jojohamasa]

You don't necessarily have to sacrifice something (If done right). If we take increasing blocksize vs SegWit.

SegWit have no downsides while increasing the blocksize could give us centralization to a certain degree as the blockchain size increases over the years.

We're far from having Bitcoin 2.0 but BIPs are definitely being put on the table and constantly being worked on so with time, the limitations will you're talking about will start to fade.

I agree with your opinion to a great extent
I add a question here
What is the effect of talking about Bitcoin 2.0 now on the Bitcoin price
I am afraid to be negative.
 

[DooMAD]

If I had been in charge in 2009, I'd make sure I did all the things that annoy Franky1 before he ever got into Bitcoin, so that he might have never got involved to begin with and we might be spared the horrors of his incessant whiny bitching.

again if you understood consensus as it was in 2009 2013.

You don't want people to understand consensus, you want to distort and pervert the meaning of the word "consensus" to something that suits your bullshit propaganda.  You are attempting to brainwash people.  Fortunately, most people aren't stupid enough to fall for it.  Most people understand that those securing the chain decide what consensus is.  The simple and undeniable fact is that 9000+ nodes are running Core software.  None of the supposedly bad things you whine about (in every goddamn thread, seemingly) would have happened if people chose to run other clients instead.  You can leave at any time if you don't approve of the decisions which the people securing this network are freely choosing to make.  Your quarrel lies with them.  They're running the code you don't like.  

[franky1]

oh here we go.. mr "dev state" defender numero one with his insults.
yawn

If I were in charge, I'd make sure I did all the things that annoy Franky1 before he ever got into Bitcoin, so that he might never get involved to begin with and we might be spared the horrors of his incessant whiny bitching.

again if you understood consensus as it was in 2009 2013.

You don't want people to understand consensus, you want to distort and pervert the meaning of the word "consensus" to something that suits your bullshit propaganda.  You are attempting to brainwash people.  Fortunately, most people aren't stupid enough to fall for it.  Most people understand that those securing the chain decide what consensus is.  The simple and undeniable fact is that 9000+ nodes are running Core software.  None of the supposedly bad things you whine about (in every goddamn thread, seemingly) would have happened if people chose to run other clients instead.  You can leave at any time if you don't approve of the decisions which the people securing this network are freely choosing to make.  Your quarrel lies with them.  They're running the code you don't like.  

^ the main authoritarian admirer at his best flip flop attempts
look at him tell people that if they dont like things they should leave at any time if they dont approve
typical mindset

in consensus its simple
if people dont approve they should not leave
they should just not approve of something they do not approve of.

leaving is not a vote. leaving is avoiding a vote thus letting the corrupt automatically get 100% simple because the only ones left to vote are the sheep adoration brigade

typical for core fans, want to remove people that dont approve which is what occured in august 2017 (the blockchain doesnt lie)
and thats how the core now hav majority as oppose to only 35% in spring 2017

..
but you lot continue with your mindset of "dev state" adoration. you simply just have to admit that your authoritarian centralists an the debate ends

you fear having diverse teams of different brands cooperating on a single network
you fear having diverse teams of different brands offering proposals that oppose cores roadmap
you fear having diverse teams of different brands that could oppose cores wishes

all you desire is core control where everyone else just follows cores roadmap. thus you do not want a decentralised diverse network of different brands you want a core branded network of sheep  that are just distributing core code to retain cores control and leadership

[DooMAD]

in consensus its simple
if people dont approve they should not leave
they should just not approve of something they do not approve of.

leaving is not a vote. leaving is avoiding a vote thus letting the corrupt automatically get 100% simple because the only ones left to vote are the sheep adoration brigade

Bitcoin is not a democracy.  It doesn't have elections.  There isn't a "vote", as such.  If that's what you want to see in Bitcoin, I assure you you're going to be disappointed, because I've yet to see any software that could make the Bitcoin network function in such a fashion.  No one cares what you "approve of" because your words don't mean anything.  I don't approve of you being a lying sack of human excrement, but that's not something I can express in code.  So it's irrelevant.  Run the code you want.  Or make new code.  Those are your freedoms to do with as you will.  Your freedom, however, does not entitle you to tell others what they can code.  If you believe it does, you are the authoritarian.

You run the software you like.  That software matches you up with other users who agree with you.  You then form a network and build a blockchain together.    
If you are not compatible with the network, you automatically leave the network and form a new one with other people running code which is compatible with yours.

That's consensus.  

You can't unilaterally change the meaning of consensus to "this group of devs can only code this and not propose new ideas and we have to have a vote and everyone needs to agree and blah blah blah standard Franky1 utter dross blah blah", etc.  You're a moron and you don't understand the first thing about anything.  

You say you don't agree, but you keep running code that makes you compatible with the network you claim you don't agree with.  Just in case you're a little slow on the uptake, I'll repeat that point more slowly and give it the appropriate emphasis:

You say you don't agree but WHAT YOU SAY DOESN'T MATTER.

WHAT YOU RUN MATTERS and you're running code that relays transactions on a network that enforces rules you clearly don't agree with.

I'm not saying you should leave, I'm saying you can.  I'm suggesting it might serve your cause better than your current methods of lying about "developer control" and the other general shit-stirring you seem to believe is effective.  It's clearly not having the desired effect.  You're not having any success at changing this network, so the next best option open to you is to build a new network that proves your ideas are viable.  But good luck with that, because they aren't viable.  At all.  Which is probably why you're still here.

I have to ask at this stage... are you a masochist or something?  Again, you're free to stick around and keep doing it, but I honestly can't tell what you're getting out of it unless it's some sort of pleasure from pain thing.  I mean, you're not blind.  You can obviously see the 9000+ nodes running code you absolutely despise.  Then you see your pitiful, miniscule, insignificant, handful of nodes running code you like, but it doesn't even touch the sides.  You are wholly impotent.  And yet, you seem to think your best course of action is to stay on this network and then spend vast quantities of your spare time whining about it like a total pussy because you can't get what you want?  Seriously?  If you had a hope in hell of getting what you wanted, then sure, stick around and fight for it.  But as we've established on numerous occasions, not only is what you want impossible, it's also terrible.  The numbers against you are insurmountable.  If anything, support for your ideology is diminishing rather than growing.  No amount of your insane protests are going to change what is clearly a total failure on your part to present a compelling case.  But whatever, stay and keep derailing topics.  It's not like you're having any impact other than being a general annoyance.