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

[squatter]

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

There are obviously security trade-offs when you compare to Bitcoin. That's to be expected when you're getting nearly free and instant transactions using a trustless protocol.

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).

This can easily be prevented at the wallet level. It's trivially easy to prevent and isn't an effective mode of attack. Users won't have to think about this and significant nodes/hubs engaging in that sort of behavior would be quickly outed and ostracized.

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

It's not based on trust. You just keep repeating that. All parties connected to the "factory" can see its commitments on chain. Everything is "audited." See here for a simple explanation.

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.

Trust is not required because 1) the Bitcoin blockchain arbitrates disputes among channel participants and 2) LN punishes dishonest participants by allowing the other party to take the offenders' coins from the channel.

LN uses Bitcoin for Byzantine fault tolerance.

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.

It's not entirely clear what you're saying. LN nodes need to be online to update channel state but failing that, channels can just be closed based on expiration of locktime.

[1714769248]

1714769248

[m0Ray]

It is always like this – common people know what should be done better than developers. I am not sure that my recommend will work.

[franky1]

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).

This can easily be prevented at the wallet level. It's trivially easy to prevent and isn't an effective mode of attack. Users won't have to think about this and significant nodes/hubs engaging in that sort of behavior would be quickly outed and ostracized.

1. users will have to think about it becaus users (99% of people) will be using cellphone apps.. thus trusting the 'significant nodes(factories)/hubs (who is the app creator)*
2. quickly outed? the significant nodes/ will be the ones holding users funds. and needing their signature.*
3. by a user trying to broadcast a tx from a cellphone app. guess who they API send it through... yep the server (app company) who are the factory/significant node of concern*
 
its like having a payment dispute over an applepay tx. but your using apples app. and they have 2 signature authority vs your 1 signature in a 2-of-3 signature scheme, which under schnorr you will not realise its a 2-of-3, you will be optimistic that its a 2-of-2, and have to trust that is the case.. until its too late

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

It's not based on trust. You just keep repeating that. All parties connected to the "factory" can see its commitments on chain. Everything is "audited." See here for a simple explanation.

your link is an example concept where a blockchain confirmed tx used as the peg for a inchannel open session.. thats like an outdated concept from 2017.
the concept is now you blockchain confirm and lock with a factory.
the factory then sends out unconfirmed non blockchain 'balance' to your wallet. and then you use that balance to open channels
making you 2 hops separated away from the blockchain proven tx

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.

Trust is not required because 1) the Bitcoin blockchain arbitrates disputes among channel participants and 2) LN punishes dishonest participants by allowing the other party to take the offenders' coins from the channel.

LN uses Bitcoin for Byzantine fault tolerance.

seems you trust things too much.. optimism about utopia vs critical thinking is where optimism is the flaw of trust
LN does not use bitcoin for byzantine fault tolerance. bitcoin does not stop a factory from altering its code at a whim.
users cellphone app is at the mercy of the factories whim

what your saying about LN is like saying bitcoin solves the issues of coinbase.com
oh and if you do manage to get a raw tx and broadcast it without cellphone API to your factory(because they wont relay if they are malicious)
they will simply treat you as the one in the wrong and thus send out their own tx revoking you.
yes its possible..
.. and yes you end up having to trust that they wont. and trust that because there isnt any scam accusation posts about certain factories that the factory/cellphone app company you use is trustable*

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.

It's not entirely clear what you're saying. LN nodes need to be online to update channel state but failing that, channels can just be closed based on expiration of locktime.

i guess you really havnt used/testd LN. or if you have you only used it under th limited 'ill stay in the only use as intended' remit.. and not been critical to bug test it via the 'play around swing a bat around and see what breaks' remit

sometimes optimism(trust and dreams) are not good. yes they feel good. but when it comes to securing funds. not good

*i know what you are thinking.. the old 2017 concept (pre factory) of be your own node.
well you do realise that LN concepts are now master nodes monitoring multiple chains like vertcoin, lightcoin and bitcoin..
which if you were a critical thinker rather than an optimist of trust. will make you realise this:
1. when your at a coffee shop will you be bringing your laptop/desktop with you running a masternode to buy coffee?
2. if your computer is ok to run a masternode of several blockchains. then its man enough to just run one blockchain of larger scale, so why debate that bitcoin cant scale due to home computer limitations if your home computer isnt as limited as you care to admit by saying you can run a masternode for several blockchains
3. 99% of people wont be masternodes.

[DooMAD]

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

How you could derive such utter falsehoods from my words is beyond comprehension.  Once again, you're literally just making shit up.  I prefer freedom.  I will continue to defend that preference against your incessant lies and manipulations.  Users have a choice.  They're making that choice right now.  You just don't like it.  Your idiotic notions of "voting" are worthless.  Here, we run code.  That's all that matters.

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

My mindset is that I respect the decisions which those securing this chain have made.  You want to undermine those decisions and make unilateral changes.  That's not how consensus works.  

You want everyone to follow you, but no one is, so you pretend something must be wrong with how things work.  Why wouldn't everyone naturally want that things you want?  Oh right, it must be a conspiracy.  An all-powerful cabal of developer overlords preventing users from making decisions for themselves.  Clearly everyone has been brainwashed into downloading and running their software.  They don't have the free will or self-determination to do anything else, such as run the client you're running, for example.  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact your ideas are stupid and no one cares about them.  Yep, definitely a conspiracy.  

Stop pretending you speak for the community.  They speak for themselves by running the code that enforces their will.  All you speak is a total load of bollocks.  

[franky1]

Users have a choice.  They're making that choice right now.  You just don't like it.  Your idiotic notions of "voting" are worthless.

users have a choice :: there is no voting
                        flip :: flop

make up your mind
your confusing people running a node because there its the only way to not use a custodian for coin storage.. with the consensus vote of being able to activate/object to activating new features(which has slowly been diluted and lost)

people dont run core to have a free will independant choice of what features the network should/shouldnt have.
people run core just to not have to use a custodian for their coins

core are very much in control of the features and rules of the network. not by user choice. but by actions done by the "dev state" over the years

as for your personal attacks.. you make me laugh.
i dont want people to follow me.. show me some code i made that people should follow
show me some code that has mandated activations.

its also why. i say to people to do their own research. i even say that its best not to just be spoonfed from their social buddy/chum groups but do independent research
but you have been adamant you would prefer to argue and tell me i should leave the community, rather than actually recognise what independant thoughts, opinions and open community are really about.

if you dont like my open thoughts and opinions. hit the ignore button. its simple

now, how about you look passed your love and adoration of "dev state" and notice their actions which you keep trying to deny, even when they fully admit it. as that is the biggest flaw in your rebuttals. they are happy with their "dev state" status.
im not sure why you defend them by denying the actions they are happy to admit

as for saying the community run the code that enforces their will.
you yourself have been promoting the non vote/ compatibility of where users dont get to tell devs what devs can and should do

maybe best you really did take some time and research.. or atleast have a coffee and think about are you flipping or flopping. choose one and stick with it.

you are soo in the authoritarian mindset of wanting "dev state" to reign supreme. you have even admitted that even before i write any code for anyone to review/use you will REKT it.. simply because it opposes "dev state"

also your soo stuck in the authoritarian mindset that you believe that those not wanting core to be the "dev state" authoritarian, must mean the opposer wants to be an authoritarian
yet you cannot actually understand a system of multiple teams on an equal level play ground that all dont use mandated crap, and instead let consensus play out.

you only reside leadership, a dominant brand. where they set their agenda and no one can tell them what to do or not do.
its like you dont understand true freedom. but only recognise a tory/monarch empire as being "freedom"

you call that being "open to freedom"... pfft

[franky1]

as for your UNRESEARCHED fake beliefs that 95% are core loyal

https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/?q=1037
only 65% are full nodes
majority of that are actually not run by humans at home independantly but are sybil nodes on amazon, hertsner, digital ocean

and as you keep on promoting people dont vote, people dont need to upgrade as they are "compatible"
so people are not 95% loyal.

now have a coffee relax for a while, destress yourself and self rview if your foing to flip or flop.
or you can just ignore my opinion and hit the ignore button

again for emphasis. i have not and have have nor ever will be trying to sway people into a authoritarian regime. i simple desire to wake people up to the one that already exists since 2013. so that people can see how things have changed since 2013

i have made no code demands of people. nor have i mandated change. i just openly offer my opinion and tell people to go do some independant research

you dont like it? hit the ignore button.

and stop telling people if they dont like the authoritarian regime they can simply "f**k off".. as thats just soo anti freedom

[franky1]

anyway putting aside mr meanders personal attacks yet again.

back to the topic at hand
summary of my opinion
1. not bloating the blockchains with smart contracts aimed to push people off network will strengthen utility on network because it keeps people on network.(pushing people offnetwork is not scaling bitcoin. its like telling americans to use canada's payment system due to american system limitations is not increasing USD usage)

2. making transactions lean (hard drive real byte storage for full validatable tx data) would allow the transaction count to not decline (making smart transaction formats more popular REDUCES tx count byte per byte as they are heavier)

3. not having wishy washy code that forgets to count bytes in code, to bypass hard drive byte storage rule, (witness scale factor is just partly it)
or
4. simply remove the rule if the hard drive ends up storing more bytes than the rule imposed is meant to prevent.(because the rule is then redundant anyways)

5. removing the witness scale factor allows full 4mb utility, and removes the fake tx fee promotion. as witness scale factors doesnt actually discount segwit users. it actually just makes legacy 4x more expensive.(code shows legacy fee as *4... it does not show segwit fee / 4)

6. make transactors who wish to bloat/spam the blockchain be the ones punished by costing that bloater/spammer more. rather than making the average transactor pay more due to one persons actions

yes i do expect a certain meander object that any idea's of change not advocated by "dev state" are wrong/bad/should not be allowed to even be discussed because it doesnt fit the "dev state" roadmap
but there lays issue which number 6 should address.

7. have a network of independant teams that dont get rekt for opposing a "dev state" by there not being a "dev state". instead have it so anyone can propose anything. and it only activates if there is true consensus (2009-2013 consensus)

[franky1]

You want to undermine those decisions and make unilateral changes.

show me my undermining code that will make unilateral changes..

also read my footnote
"Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at"

im not the dictator here. but your anger, hostility, swearing, curcing and trying to say i should leave the community. and your desire to REKT anything not core.. are very very revealing of what your desires are.

if you dont like what people discuss. then maybe you should b the one that avoids a discussion forum.. or atleast

if you dont like what i have to say. hit the ignore button

[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.

[ralle14]

If I had an opportunity to change Bitcoin i'll probably leave it as it is and let everyone suggest whatever they want. Everything has to be discussed thoroughly before putting any changes in to action because it may do more harm than good. If any changes were rushed we might experience some problems.

Imo it could've been done better since nothing is perfect and changes will come to make Bitcoin even better.

Edit:  These back and forth replies made the thread somewhat interesting to read.   

[Wind_FURY]

If I had an opportunity to change Bitcoin i'll probably leave it as it is and let everyone suggest whatever they want. Everything has to be discussed thoroughly before putting any changes in to action because it may do more harm than good. If any changes were rushed we might experience some problems.

Imo it could've been done better since nothing is perfect and changes will come to make Bitcoin even better.

Edit:  These back and forth replies made the thread somewhat interesting to read.  

Everyone? Sure, the incompetent and non-coders can propose anything, and make a pull request, but they should not expect any of their suggestions to be merged in the main branch automatically.

[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.

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

meaning different brands of nodes that can all HAPPILY(without rekt, without 'dont like it F**k off').. offr proposals which would only activate when TRUE majority consensus was reached(without rekt, without 'dont like it f**k off') and satoshi invented bitcoin because it solved all that..

but now we are in a one general barking out the new orders to their loyal soldiers. and if soldiers were not loyal. they were shot onsite

which is the opposite of the whole reason of bitcoin unique invention, which was to finally have a currency which solved the byzantine generals issue to allow more than one brand to actually be on a level playing field.

yet you and your chums do not like the idea of having generals(plural) that use consensus. you lot prefer a general(singular) with mandated upgrades and consensus bypassing upgrades that are done without soldier allegiance needed

as exampled

Everyone? Sure, the incompetent and non-coders can propose anything, and make a pull request, but they should not expect any of their suggestions to be merged in the main branch automatically.

where you think everyone should have to do it via "dev state" repo where its not expected people to even get to the point of having their proposal put into code to even allow anyone to download it, to even have a chance of a community consensus.

[DooMAD]

You want to undermine those decisions and make unilateral changes.

show me my undermining code that will make unilateral changes..

You know full well that all of your unilateral changes have nothing to do with code and everything to do with telling people what they supposedly can or can't do.  Users ran code you don't like that utilised a softfork, so you say we shouldn't have softforks anymore.  A very small number of users ran code you don't like that had an activation date, so you say we can't use activation dates anymore.  You keep saying "show me the code", but nothing you're advocating can be achieved with code.  You're advocating a social contract.  Something vaguely akin to an honour system.  It's not viable.  You can't prevent people from coding something you don't like.  Accept it.  What you want is impossible.

//EDIT:  and if the community ever did find a way to stop people coding things they didn't like, it would be the client you are running that would be the first victim.  Be careful what you wish for and understand how much more you'd be complaining if we actually had the kind of Bitcoin you mistakenly believe you want.

[franky1]

You want to undermine those decisions and make unilateral changes.

show me my undermining code that will make unilateral changes..

You know full well that all of your unilateral changes have nothing to do with code and everything to do with telling people what they supposedly can or can't do.  Users ran code you don't like that utilised a softfork, so you say we shouldn't have softforks anymore.  A very small number of users ran code you don't like that had an activation date, so you say we can't use activation dates anymore.  You keep saying "show me the code", but nothing you're advocating can be achieved with code.  You're advocating a social contract.  Something vaguely akin to an honour system.  It's not viable.  You can't prevent people from coding something you don't like.  Accept it.  What you want is impossible.

//EDIT:  and if the community ever did find a way to stop people coding things they didn't like, it would be the client you are running that would be the first victim.  Be careful what you wish for and understand how much more you'd be complaining if we actually had the kind of Bitcoin you mistakenly believe you want.

mr meander AKA doomad pokes again
1.  i am not demanding anything. i am discussing. its a discussion board. dont like my opinion, there is a ignore button, its free
2. this topic is about discussing if we were to change things what would be changed. yes i get how you hate the idea that the community could discuss or even change the network to oppose "dev state" roadmap. but remember this is a discussion of opinions. so relax chill out, have a coffee
3. i am not advocating anything. i am saying bitcoin was designed 2009 to solve the issue of avoiding the need of a "dev state"(general(singular)) and instead where the bitcoin system works via community consensus of generals(plural). because thats the unique thing satoshi solved.
4. i know you want "dev state" to decide changes and have the community as just loyal soldiers just archiving data under the rules defined by dev state. you have been very clear on that. even to such an extent that before even writing public available code you have made it your mission to REKT anyone that opposes "dev state"

all you have done over the last few months is admit your a capitalist centralist where "dev state" are the kings and above the law and they deserve to be free. and everyone else should just be loyalists with no say. because you dont want community votes.. you just keep flip flopping to try hiding your desire. and you pretend you want freedom as long as it only applies to freely letting "dev state" to rule

[DooMAD]

1.  i am not demanding anything. i am discussing. its a discussion board. dont like my opinion, there is a ignore button, its free
2. this topic is about discussing if we were to change things what would be changed. yes i get how you hate the idea that the community could discuss or even change the network to oppose "dev state" roadmap. but remember this is a discussion of opinions. so relax chill out, have a coffee

Discussions tend to be more productive if you don't keep repeating the same thing over and over again when it's abundantly clear that what you are discussing is not possible to implement.  Or do I take it that you will finally stop saying roadmaps can't have softforks or activation dates when they clearly can?  You get told quite plainly in one topic that you can't prevent softforks and activation dates without sacrificing permissionless freedom, but all you do is move onto the next topic to repeat the same dumb thing.  

You could post your usual lies about me only supporting the one dev team, or you could accept the simple fact that the way things are now provides a healthier environment to alternative clients than the restricted environment you propose.  And don't pretend you aren't proposing it.  You've been saying it for months.  But if you're done saying it, then hallelujah.

[franky1]

1.  i am not demanding anything. i am discussing. its a discussion board. dont like my opinion, there is a ignore button, its free
2. this topic is about discussing if we were to change things what would be changed. yes i get how you hate the idea that the community could discuss or even change the network to oppose "dev state" roadmap. but remember this is a discussion of opinions. so relax chill out, have a coffee

Discussions tend to be more productive if you don't keep repeating the same thing over and over again when it's abundantly clear that what you are discussing is not possible to implement.  Or do I take it that you will finally stop saying roadmaps can't have softforks or activation dates when they clearly can?  You get told quite plainly in one topic that you can't prevent softforks and activation dates without sacrificing permissionless freedom, but all you do is move onto the next topic to repeat the same dumb thing.  

You could post your usual lies about me only supporting the one dev team, or you could accept the simple fact that the way things are now provides a healthier environment to alternative clients than the restricted environment you propose.  And don't pretend you aren't proposing it.  You've been saying it for months.  But if you're done saying it, then hallelujah.

oh jeez, you poke, so ill bite..

the reason you hate me repeating myself is because you hate me raising an issue you wish lay hidden under a rug. and you hate me making people aware of the issue. which makes your job harder to hide it.
i have told you many many times that the MANDATED bull crap is the opposite of consensus. but then you act ignorant that i said it and act even more ignorant that i prefer consensus. all so you can pretend im the one advocating for splits and mandated.. but thats your flaw

restrictive environment??
seriously you need to do some research
devs can and should be able to write what they like. this includes taking onboard things the community want.. your mindset is the devs should ignore the community and the community should not have a say.(your no democracy no vote proposal)

my mindset is more teams where there is no REKT campaigns. your mindset is to have REKT campaigns and one team

my mindset is to use consensus to decide.. your mindset is that there should not be a vote and that a certain team should just demand something activates on a date and push opposition off the network contentiously at a lower threshold

now how about go take that coffee, sit back, relax de-stress and really review your own flip flops and just pick what one you really prefer
libertarian capitalist socialist(open to all) decentralised network of consensus to solve the byzantine generals problem
or
capitalist centralised network with just loyalist distribution that just follow by compatibility of the single general
so use this posts discussing to be productive and choose to flip or flop. and stick with one

then if you really want to discuss things about bitcoin. try to stick to content of the discussion and not the author of discussion. if your agenda the moment you wish to reply is to just attack the author of a discussion. try hitting the ignore button instead. and no point acting the bitten victim of a personal comment as reason to reply. as it was you that done the initial personal poke

[DooMAD]

devs can and should be able to write what they like.

Quoted for posterity.  Let's hope you're finally starting to get it.  Any dev can code anything.  Otherwise the militant Core supporters (not me) will argue that alternative clients can't write the things they want to write.  Much like some people have tried to argue in the past, leading me to defend the rights of those alternative clients.  You act like I'm the enemy here, but believe it or not, my stance does a better job of preserving freedom for alternative clients than your stance. 

The REKT campaigns were the primary culprits of perpetuating the myth that other developers shouldn't be allowed to code what they wanted.  That means anyone who argues that Core can't use activation dates or softforks is only making it more acceptable for the next REKT campaign against an alternative client to say those devs can't do whatever they might be doing.  It's therefore the far more intelligent argument to make that anyone can code anything, even if you don't approve of it.  Think it through and you'll see that I'm right about this.

[franky1]

devs can and should be able to write what they like.

Quoted for posterity.

they can write anything. but thats different from should they be allowed to control the whole network using consensus bypasses
imagine it if other teams done it. im sure youll be up in arms. infact i already seen it you have demonstrated that you would REKT anyone that opposed core. so your a hypocrit when you think its ok for core to dominate and control but then hate it when anyone else even discusses a possibility of non core control...

again try to learn consensus
learn byzantine generals

again its about anyone can write what they like. but it doesnt mean they should get what they like.

EG you can write your name and number on a napkin all you like. but that doesnt mean you get the right to mandate a female to become your wife

....
back to the discussion topic of what a coin 2.0 should change

writing features should be something any team should be able to write and have their own proposal gateway without having you go through cores moderated/censored method. but where the feature is only activated using satoshis solution to the byzantine generals problem which is what made bitcoin unique to all previous distributed database models. not mandated activation to bypass consensus.. as that is just a standard database that just has loyalist copies distributed all following one dictator

[DooMAD]

they can write anything. but thats different from should they be allowed to control the whole network using consensus bypasses
imagine it if other teams done it. im sure youll be up in arms.

You're still the only one who thinks there has been a "consensus bypass", but okay, whatever.  I know I'd defend the rights of alternative clients to use softforks and activation dates because it's up to users if they want to run that code.  I would argue that users should have that choice.  Freedom, etc. 

but where the feature is only activated using satoshis solution to the byzantine generals problem which is what made bitcoin unique to all previous distributed database models. not mandated activation to bypass consensus..

If you ever figure out the "how", I'd love to hear it.  Your so-called bypass was the result of people running code and you can't stop them doing that.

[AltcoinTradingSignal.com]

Thank you for asking a very interesting question. I would want it to be more scalable, more readily available to users, environment-friendly and stable. But, I know this is all wishful thinking
The 2nd generation of cryptocurrency is slowly and steadily moving towards what I have mentioned here, and it will be only time when we can have what we want.