1. so you both said the same thing for (which I already said I don`t care if the possibility is low, it is a possibility) Yes, there is ways around it, how do game devs make it some people can only have one user name?, easy if address is in use, do not allow duplicate address creation. How do they do it with emails? same thing.
It is ridiculous you can generate someones address, even if it is a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance.
That analogy is completely not applicable to addresses at all. Firstly, there is no central database where you register an address when you generate one before you can use it. No one has to approve your address before you can use it. If you mean just have wallet software check whether an address has been used before on the blockchain, that's completely pointless. Two people could still have generated the same address but if the first guy never used it, the second guy wouldn't know that someone has generated it. Additionally, it's completely pointless because in order to generate an address, you must generate a private key first, then calculate the public key, then calculate the address. So in order to have an address, you will already have the private key necessary to spend outputs associated with it, so even if the wallet doesn't discards that address, you've already generated the private key and stored it. And an attacker can just use their own software that doesn't prevent them from using private keys they generate to addresses that already exist on the blockchain.
On a protocol level, it is literally impossible to never have an address collision, the laws of physics do not allow it. In order for there to never be address collisions, you would need to have an infinite number of addresses. This would mean that there would need to be infinite storage space in order to store an infinite number of addresses which can be infinitely long. That's literally impossible to do. As soon as you introduce a finite limit somewhere, then someone who has infinite computing power and time can infinitely keep generating addresses until they find a collision. It may be extremely improbable that they find one, but we're talking about infinity here, so they have infinite amounts of time to do so.
2. I mean it is pretty damn complicated for the average potato to obtain bitcoins, why not just a fiat exchange built into the wallet? (since you all think bitcoin is suppose to be a store of fiat scam)
I mean a tutorial could of been built into the wallet already on what everything does. The hud could be upgraded, the wallet is pretty buggy and glitches out a lot. There could be a built in exchange (fuck the regulators) etc etc. I can see a lot of improvements to be made in this field.
Many wallet software already do this. But it isn't related to the Bitcoin protocol at all.
3.
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/china/ this was months ago, What stops a rich dood to obtain 51% of the hashing power, nothing. They can halt all transactions and ruin the network, sure they might lose fiat money, but perhaps they don`t care about fiat money and the bitcoin network. (ever seen a jihad bomber?)
Miners do not control Bitcoin. If someone decided to do that and try to destroy Bitcoin, I don't doubt that people would quickly implement a hard fork changing Bitcoin to using a new PoW algorithm. Existing miners are not necessary to produce forks like this, and with a new PoW, people can use CPUs and GPUs again to mine. Considering that the vast majority of hash rate use ASICs which can only compute one hash algorithm, using a new hash algorithm would render those machines completely useless.
4. 2140 sorry, still I suggest you look into this simulation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7TLFyK_3Pk I don`t care so much about today, I been pro in over 3 major video games top 1 on the ladder, What matters is the end game on how to win, everything else is irrelevant if you get the "victory" on your screen, I am looking out for the future of our kind, I want my species to prevail.
Mining doesn't stop, only the block subsidy stops. Furthermore, there's these things called transaction fees that pay miners. The whole point of the decreasing block subsidy is to allow for the fixed supply and guarantee scarcity which implies value (historically, things that have been scarce have been considered valuable). Transaction fees will allow for miners to be compensated for their work, so miners who join later when the block subsidy reaches a negligible point will still be able to earn money via transaction fees.
5. Lighting is a good start, but why not apply lighting into the bitcoin wallet itself?
What is this "the bitcoin wallet" you keep talking about? There are multiple Bitcoin wallets out there, not everyone uses the same one. Some are implementing Lightning, others are not.
6. Not my opinion as you stated in the above post, that is a ERIK FIN`s and I can see what he is talking about.
Who is Erik Fin and what relevance does he have? Regardless, people are in fact working on the above. In what way do you think that people aren't working on the things that you brought up? In what way are people actually being cultish?
In regards to your first point, people are in fact increasing the number of possible addresses making it even less likely that there will be address collisions. Traditionally there has been a limit of 2^160 addresses with a large number of private/public key pairs colliding due to the pigeonhole principle (~2^256 possible public/private keypairs which is larger than the 2^160 address space). The proposed Segwit v1 (taproot and schnorr signatures proposal) address types will be using public keys directly instead of shorter hashes, so there will be 2^256 possible addresses, far larger than the existing 2^160 thus further reducing the probability that there will be address collisions. This also makes it far less likely to have different private keys map to the same address because the pigeonhole principle doesn't apply.
Regarding your third point, there have been concrete proposals and implementations prepared for emergency Proof of Work changes. Furthermore, Bitcoin Core allows node operators to explicitly reject blocks (and thus chains) allowing for people to perform an emergency hard fork without the need for a software upgrade. This could be used in the even of a miner censoring all transactions by simply rejecting all of their blocks.
Regarding your fifth point, there are tons of people working on the Lightning Network. There has been discussions and proposed changes about lowering the minimum relay fee in Bitcoin Core thus allowing for sub 1 satoshi per byte fee rates and so lower minimum fees (the main holdback on this is deploying it safely to avoid early adopters from making transactions that won't be relayed while the network is upgrading). There has been significant work in reducing the size of transactions thus reducing the cost of creating transactions and thus allowing for more transactions to fit in a block.
And if you think that Bitcoin developers are a closed cult group, you couldn't be more wrong. There has been significant efforts in reaching out and getting more people to making contributions to the Bitcoin ecosystem. Lots of new things have appeared to get more technical people into contributing like the Bitcoin Optech group or Chaincode's Bitcoin Residency program. Both of those reach out to technical people and companies to get them to learn about how Bitcoin actually works and to have people actively contributing to widely used software such as Bitcoin Core. There has also been several meetups such as BitDevs NYC, BitDevs Boston, and San Francisco Bitcoin developers where people can meet Bitcoin developers regularly and learn about Bitcoin's technicals and to generally be a developer. Bitcoin Core itself has seen a recent influx of people interested in contributing. The number of active contributors has greatly expanded over the past couple of years. Furthermore, these people aren't just blindly following existing leaders, they come up with their own (sometimes) novel ideas and provide useful contributions. It isn't just some blind following of a dictator. Additionally, many of the people working on the Lightning Network are pretty new to Bitcoin development. Many weren't really well known or prominent in Bitcoin development prior to their work on Lightning. And lastly, discussions for many major Bitcoin projects happen out in the open in public channels allowing anyone to chime in with their own thoughts and ideas.
If you think Bitcoin users are cult like, that can't be helped. Studies of human psychology tells us that mob mentality is a real thing. Anywhere there are individuals who have a similar interest where they can express themselves freely about that interest to each other will inevitably lead to a mob mentality. You don't just see this in Bitcoin; literally look at any other public forum about some specific topic and you will see this mob mentality (also known as the circlejerking) which looks cult like. It is unfortunate that this mob mentality can't be helped, and the internet certainly hasn't helped with it, so you'll just have to deal with it.
