one mainstream hardfork every 10 years is ok

[konfuzius5278]

I wonder myself if its not ok to do an mainstream hardfork of Bitcoin every 10-12 years.
I know BTC want always be back compatible, but maybe in this timeframe all could agree.

1)He could improve scalabitlity with
- 3 Mb Block size

2) He could improve TX Time and savety by set up Masternodes with an reward of 5% of every block. This would not be really POS if you dont like that

- Instant TX is possible
-Chainlock is possibe, which brings a lot extra savety

- and even proposals for future decision is possible


3) He could make himself quantum resistent


When you plan this 6 month or a year ahead with giving people software to upgrade their wallet its would be less risk.

And the key later still exits so nothing is lost


What you think

[gentlemand]

There will never be enough consensus for a hark fork other than a catastrophic technical problem. There are just too many competing interests and agendas. All attempts to force it have failed and as time goes on it'll become ever less likely.

In a few more years the thought of it will seem as outlandish as voting to get the sun to rise two hours later.

[squatter]

1)He could improve scalabitlity with
- 3 Mb Block size

We already have a 4MB block weight limit.

Further capacity increases would just increase throughput. They would not improve scalability.

2) He could improve TX Time and savety by set up Masternodes with an reward of 5% of every block. This would not be really POS if you dont like that

It is a form of POS, if only a hybrid form.

There is a long list of potentially desirable hard fork changes to Bitcoin called the "Hardfork Wishlist" -- hybrid POS will never be on it.

3) He could make himself quantum resistent

That could be done with a soft fork, like the implementation of Segwit's signature scheme.

There will never be enough consensus for a hark fork other than a catastrophic technical problem. There are just too many competing interests and agendas. All attempts to force it have failed and as time goes on it'll become ever less likely.

In a few more years the thought of it will seem as outlandish as voting to get the sun to rise two hours later.

Basically. The market has spoken pretty strongly about this: A Bitcoin hard fork = a network split.

[pooya87]

He could improve TX Time and savety by set up Masternodes with an reward of 5% of every block.

one of the main principles of bitcoin that will never change is to be decentralized. a cryptocurrency with masternodes is THE definition of being centralized.

This would not be really POS if you dont like that

another principle is to be secure. PoS is not.

- Instant TX is possible

transactions are already instant.

-Chainlock is possibe, which brings a lot extra savety

chainlock is a poor workaround that tiny altcoins with little to no hashrate use to mitigate some of the problems that are caused by their lack of security. it has nothing to do with scaling!

3) He could make himself quantum resistent

first there has to be a quantum threat for it to be quantum resistance.

[amacar2]

Yeah anybody can fork bitcoin even you can if you have enough technical knowledge as bitcoin is open source. There are already hundreds of forks with different claims and features many have died because of 51% attack and many are still under radar.

Its very hard to convince every bitcoin user with any consensus so hard fork is almost impossible without spliting the community and even soft fork will take years.

Hardfork will only create new chain and might die within few years after everybody sell their free holdings.

[konfuzius5278]

So you claim, Bitcoin will never hardfork.

All Bitcoin Maxis I have heared it will fork when its necessary. But as in e.g. katastrpoic situations its better to be prepared then run after the situation

Yes of course its POW/POS Hybdrid. But 5% of each block reward does in practice not really

- centralise something
- make POW unneeded or underrewarded
- make something unsave. Its just the other way round

By the way its not really 4 MB its 4 Million weight units, which maybe 1 MB up to 4 MB.

Bitcoin makes instant TX?? Appart from appearing in TX Core Info its not realistic and you know that. LN has NOTHING to do with Bitcoin

[pooya87]

So you claim, Bitcoin will never hardfork.

anyone making this claim is wrong.

Yes of course its POW/POS Hybdrid. But 5% of each block reward does in practice not really

you first have to come up with a better solution compared to current PoW algorithm before talking about hard fork.  right now you have a worse solution.

Bitcoin makes instant TX?? Appart from appearing in TX Core Info its not realistic and you know that. LN has NOTHING to do with Bitcoin

yes it is instant, when you send a tx it takes about less than 5 seconds to propagate through the entire network. as for confirmation, if we define confirmation as the transaction becoming 99.9% irreversible then bitcoin has the fastest confirmation among all available options because to put simply 1 bitcoin confirmation is equal to thousands of confirmation in decentralized altcoin and infinity in centralized altcoins (since being centralized means they control what to reverse like ETH).
as for LN, it is a part of bitcoin. it exists on bitcoin and only because of bitcoin.

[1Referee]

Such proposals are kinda pointless to discuss because they will never be forked in. Neither would I want them to be forked in.

People keep complaining about low transaction throughput, high fees, but we have years worth of evidence that people just want Bitcoin to work as it does. We don't see major transaction volume increases in the altcoin side of the industry despite their fast and cheap transactions. If people really cared about that, the transaction volumes of altcoins would grow exponentially, but they don't.

Be happy with what you have. We have one shot with Bitcoin so let's not turn Bitcoin into a gimmick coin. Altcoins are those gimmick coins.

[Nadziratel]

1)He could improve scalabitlity with
- 3 Mb Block size

It has been discussed here this block size thing a lot of times. It was accepted by everyone that this was not the right practice. Because there's no end to that. If we use 3mb block size, we will discuss a few times later; when will use 4mb, 5mb... It is not good solution.

Other friends wrote about other things. Be sure, community always discussing all your ideas already. And we have not seen any good progress yet.

[DooMAD]

Unless this is your not-so-subtle way of asking for help writing some code, posting your wishlist on a forum is not going to achieve anything.  First you need some code, then you need to test it to breaking point and prove it's better than what we currently have.  Then, if people are supportive of the new code, you can start planning your fork.  Until then, you're in the same league as a kid sitting on Santa's lap hoping that a grown-up is listening.  Sorry, you're not getting a pony.

[konfuzius5278]

No here brings a real argument against those think that could be done in  the fork

1) ist tested for 5 years in a working chain

2) Lightning has nothing to do with the Bitcoin satoshi claimed. Where are the permanet record of all TX he claimed in his white paper?

3) Ok lets do it 10 Mb Block size. A 2 Terrabyte harddisk is 50 Dollar now not thining about in 10 years, 5 Mb is standart google analytics when you load a website. Whats problem?

4) After that fork its no gimmick coin. After that it would be a real useable coin.  It would work in whole world for people dont have a bank accound for payment and holding

[electronicash]

its going to be harder to divide the miners though. but its still possible that another hardfork can be done for whatever purpose it may be other than wanting free money. i wouldn't want to see another fork that will rank until the first top 10 has the prefix name Bitcoin on it and the 11th place is the ETH. but it would be acceptable to fork to avoid the quantum computing threat if its really possible.

[Zicadis]

Well, you also have to consider that Bitcoin wasn't as popular during its earlier days, as such there were fewer bitcoin improvement proposals (BIPs) and there was fewer divides in the community.

Because of this, there wasn't any hard forks in the earliest days of Bitcoin.

In reality, Bitcoin only really became hugely popular around 2016-2017, which is when the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) fork occurred. Because of this, the bigger Bitcoin gets, the better chance there will for a rift in the community and hence see the code get forked.

As such, I think we'll see a large fork within the next year or two, how else with Schnorr signatures and zk-snarks get added?

[gentlemand]

In reality, Bitcoin only really became hugely popular around 2016-2017, which is when the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) fork occurred. Because of this, the bigger Bitcoin gets, the better chance there will for a rift in the community and hence see the code get forked.

As such, I think we'll see a large fork within the next year or two, how else with Schnorr signatures and zk-snarks get added?

The bigger Bitcoin gets the less relevant any shitfork will become. There'll come a time where the idea of 'flippening' is laughable. It is now but it just might be briefly possible if you fuck with market cap and corner your shitfork market enough. I expect BSV will attempt it at some point.

The people who do attempt another one will wander off into a dead end. At some point Bitcoin's market will largely be professional money. In no way will they be remotely interested in nobodies spitting dummies. They will stay where the money is and almost everyone else will follow them.

[konfuzius5278]

I dont know why Bitcoin community is so strengh about an fork to imporve functionality.
They should be glad altcoins tested functionally and savety for them.
Currently Crypto is a very small investment in the whole finance wourld. Why should so many people invest it? Because a "halving" makes our "monopoly money" more rare?

And even if its like that. Wouldnt it be great if a guy on phillipines gets paid in Bitcoin nd goes to supermarket with his mobile phone and pay with it. That should be the idea of a global money, not "dont change anything we did since 10 years

And please please dont tell Bitcoin will be possible to do that somehow in the future. Lets get the future ready today

[gentlemand]

That should be the idea of a global money, not "dont change anything we did since 10 years

Bitcoin's value is entirely down to trust. We give it value because we know it's secure. The developers are competent. There's too much mining to 51% it. The focus is on sustainability and security over anything else.

I can park money in 1 BTC and be vastly more confident it'll still be there and worth something in five years than any alt.

Any hard fork will be controversial. It will splinter the community. People will attempt to hijack it and twist it to their own ends. There are thousands of competing interests. Very few of them agree on anything. The one thing they do agree on is Bitcoin in its current form even if they don't like it.

I don't give a shit about Filipino shoppers if it means adding risk. We need something dependable and cautious. Bitcoin came out of nothing and will go back to nothing if it's broken. It would be great to accommodate everyone. At present it's not possible. Any alt that claims it is is either lying, barely used, centralised or not battle tested enough to convince everyone.

Keeping Bitcoin alive, strong and progressing sensibly is the best course of action.