An idea to make Bitcoin better

[200BTCreward]

Code:

Bitcoin distribution

Balance, BTC                Addresses   % Addresses   (Total)             Coins                   US         % Coins   (Total)
(0 - 0.001)                  19857868        51.37% (100.00%)         4,062 BTC         $256,245,016           0.02% (100.00%)
[0.001 - 0.01)	              9628596        24.91%  (48.63%)        36,739 BTC       $2,317,367,223	       0.19%  (99.98%)
[0.01 - 0.1)                  5920339        15.31%  (23.72%)       191,947 BTC      $12,107,287,259           1.02%  (99.78%)
[0.1 - 1)                     2442808         6.32%   (8.41%)	    760,408 BTC	     $47,963,600,688           4.03%  (98.77%)
[1 - 10)                       660653         1.71%   (2.09%)	  1,685,082 BTC	    $106,288,435,226           8.93%  (94.73%)
[10 - 100)                     131224         0.34%   (0.38%)	  4,271,569 BTC	    $269,434,057,820          22.65%  (85.80%)
[100 - 1,000)	                14044         0.04%   (0.04%)	  4,006,382 BTC	    $252,707,133,203          21.24%  (63.15%)
[1,000 - 10,000)	         2060         0.01%   (0.01%)	  5,266,096 BTC	    $332,164,968,947          27.92%  (41.91%)
[10,000 - 100,000)	           83            0%      (0%)     2,063,607 BTC     $130,164,387,832          10.94%  (13.99%)
[100,000 - 1,000,000)               3            0%      (0%)       574,215 BTC      $36,219,249,792           3.04%   (3.04%)

source: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html 03/Nov/2021


If we would create a Bitcoin fork that only allowed the use of the addresses with balances less than 10 BTC and "freeze" all bigger wallets after block 708077 (03/Nov/2021). That would include more than 99% of the today's holders.

What will happen after block 708077 until the hard fork date in the future?
You can still transfer your coins but if the target address has more than 10 BTC, they won't be valid after the hard fork.
The new hard fork wallet will check, if after block 708077 coins were on addresses with more than 10 BTC. That would make them invalid even if splitted thereafter to < 10 BTC addresses.

The hard fork will happen in the future but the validity calculations are valid already. (After block 708077 - 03/Nov/2021)

As of today 03/Nov/2021 the new fork will have ~16,000,000 "frozen" BTC -> max. supply = 5,000,000 BTC instead of 21,000,000 BTC

Advantages:
- Nobody would be there to sell huge amounts of Bitcoin.

Disadvantages:
- "Big whales" would be excluded.
- Satoshi's old coins (~ 1,000,000 BTC) would be "freezed"
- Exchange wallets (> 10 BTC) would be excluded. The holders could not transfer their coins.


Would you support that idea?
-> vote, there is a poll on the top of the thread.

[will be edited]

[200BTCreward]

--- we can discuss that ---

[200BTCreward]

--- reserved ---

[odolvlobo]

You are confusing addresses with people. They are not the same thing.

Your fear of whales selling large numbers of bitcoins is overblown. It is not a serious issue. It is certainly not serious enough to warrant such a drastic action that includes confiscation.

Regardless, your plan will not work. For example, a whale could simply move their 10000 BTC in a single address to 1000 addresses with 10 BTC each (before your freeze).

Your plan is not fair. Why penalize the people who have accumulated bitcoins?

[200BTCreward]

You are confusing addresses with people. They are not the same thing.

Your plan will not work. For example, a person could simply move their 10000 BTC in a single address to 1000 addresses with 10 BTC each (before your freeze).

How many users have done this? Now they can't do it in this fork that will happen in the future. [edited]

... and "freeze" all bigger wallets after block 708077 (03/Nov/2021)

... Your plan is not fair. Why penalize the people who have accumulated bitcoins?

It will be the choice of the Bitcoin community. People who have accumulated Bitcoins could sell their BTC and buy Bitcoins for the new fork today and accumulate in several addresses with less than 10 BTC. They have to look, whether the sending addresses had less than 10 BTC after block 708077, so they're valid after the hard fork date. [edited]

[odolvlobo]

You are confusing addresses with people. They are not the same thing.

Your plan will not work. For example, a person could simply move their 10000 BTC in a single address to 1000 addresses with 10 BTC each (before your freeze).

Your plan is not fair. Why penalize the people who have accumulated bitcoins?

How many users have done this? Now they can't do it in this fork.

... and "freeze" all bigger wallets after block 708077 (03/Nov/2021)

People can move their bitcoins between now and when the hard fork occurs. Creating a hard fork at block 708077 will invalidate all the blocks between then and now, and cause a major disruption. It will never happen.

[200BTCreward]

People can move their bitcoins between now and when the hard fork occurs. Creating a hard fork in the past will invalidate all the blocks between then and now, and cause a major disruption. It will never happen.

Most coins < 10 BTC won't be moved until the hard fork date to addresses with > 10 BTC balance. And if someone moves the coins to addresses with balances < 10 BTC after block 708077, they will be valid.

[odolvlobo]

People can move their bitcoins between now and when the hard fork occurs. Creating a hard fork in the past will invalidate all the blocks between then and now, and cause a major disruption. It will never happen.

Most coins < 10 BTC won't be moved until the hard fork date. And if someone moves the coins to addresses with balances < 10 BTC they will be valid.

I'm confused.

You are proposing "freezing" all addresses with more than 10 BTC. I'm saying that won't work because people with addresses holding more than 10 BTC will just spread them out to more addresses, and nothing will change other than now there is an artificial limit on the number bitcoins at an address.

You wrote that they couldn't move their bitcoins because the hard fork would occur in the past. I'm saying that doing a hard fork in the past is not feasible.

[200BTCreward]

You wrote that they couldn't move their bitcoins because the hard fork would occur in the past. I'm saying that doing a hard fork in the past is not feasible.

The hard fork will happen in the future, but the wallet of the new fork will check all blocks after block 708077, if the tx outputs are valid. My opinion: it will work.

For example:
Someone A has today 0.01 BTC, transfers it to an exchange address (> 10 BTC) -> These coins are no more valid in the new fork.
Someone B has today 0.01 BTC, transfers it to his/her/their other wallet address with 0.02 BTC -> other address with 0.03 BTC will be valid in the new fork.

You can transfer your coins until the hard fork date and they will be valid if they never were more than 10 BTC in an address.

That's the idea behind block 708077, because people could...

... people with addresses holding more than 10 BTC will just spread them out to more addresses ...

as the project is public now.

[odolvlobo]

First, let's go to the real issue: your proposal to limit the amount in an address does nothing to prevent whales from selling large quantities of bitcoins.

A person with 10000 BTC spread among 1000 addresses can still send all of those bitcoins to an exchange and sell them all at once.

And now let me show you how the implementation is problematic:

You wrote that they couldn't move their bitcoins because the hard fork would occur in the past. I'm saying that doing a hard fork in the past is not feasible.

The hard fork will happen in the future, but the wallet of the new fork will check all blocks after block 708077, if the tx outputs are valid. My opinion: it will work.

The hard fork happens at a specific block in the block chain regardless of when nodes start checking, so your hard fork would be at block 708077 regardless of when the change is actually implemented because it is at block 708077 where the rules change.

Here is an example of the problem of a hard fork in the past:

A. I have an address with 100 BTC and I send 1 BTC from it to an exchange in block 708078.
B. Then, someone sends BTC from the exchange through Bitpay to CheapAir to buy airline tickets.
C. Then, Bitpay sells the BTC to someone.
D. Then, the person that bought the BTC sends it to Bitrefill to buy gift cards.
E. Then, BitRefill ...

At a later date, you freeze my 100 BTC and invalidate transaction A in block 708078. As a result, transactions B, C, D, E, and so on will also be invalidated because they all are linked to transaction A. What happens to all those other people whose transactions are invalidated simply because my transaction was invalidated?

Also, how quickly do you think that the new rules can be implemented? Every day that it takes to switch to the new rules after block 708077 means another 144 previously valid blocks are later invalidated. The reorg could take down the network for days! Also, are miners going to mine any blocks after 708077 knowing that their block rewards will be invalidated at a later date?

[200BTCreward]

Here is an example of the problem:

A. I have an address with 100 BTC and I send 1 BTC from it to an exchange in block 708078.

You can't already use your 100 BTC address. The new fork will mark it as not valid. But you can use it in the today's blockchain.

The project is something new, we never had something like that.

We have two important dates:
A: block 708077 (03/Nov/2021)
B: hard fork date (in the future)

until A: everything as usual
between A and B: the new fork does not exist but the transactions are important for the hard fork after B
after B:  the transactions will be checked, if they are valid, that means between A and B they were not > 10 BTC

What happens to all those other people whose transactions are invalidated simply because my transaction was invalidated?

They will use it in the today's blockchain. They will be not valid in the new fork.

Also, how quickly do you think that the new rules can be implemented? Every day that it takes to switch to the new rules after block 708077 means another 144 previously valid blocks are later invalidated. The reorg could take down the network for days!

We don't have to switch it or implement new rules every day. It will happen once, on the hard fork day.

Also, are miners going to mine any blocks after 708077 knowing that their block rewards will be invalidated at a later date?

If a miner is using a new address for a new block, then he unknowingly mines valid coins for the new fork. As the block reward is 6.25 BTC + fees (< 10 BTC), they would be valid.

[odolvlobo]

Ok, I get it. You are making a new coin forked from Bitcoin.

However, your proposal to limit the amount in an address does nothing to prevent whales from selling large quantities of the coin.

[200BTCreward]

Ok, I get it. You are making a new coin forked from Bitcoin.

Why a new coin? It is Bitcoin in the purest form. I hope people will understand the project.
Bitcoin, that rewards hodlers and small BTC value holders. But these are the majority group in the Bitcoin network.

However, your proposal to limit the amount in an address does nothing to prevent whales from selling large quantities of the coin.

How? They won't have large quantities after the hard fork date.

[franky1]

what would be simpler is this
make a new coin. that starts off at genesis tomorrow. with all your address value limit features. and then.. guess what.. find a dang good reason/need/service/resource/utility it can solve beyond your coin control,
just to show your coin even has a reason to exist...
otherwise your fork..  is just another airdrop 'n' dump crapcoin fork

[odolvlobo]

However, your proposal to limit the amount in an address does nothing to prevent whales from selling large quantities of the coin.

How? They won't have large quantities after the hard fork date.

Yes, they will. addresses holding 1-10 bitcoins will have 63% of all of the coins. Furthermore, there is nothing that prevents people from accumulating large numbers of coins (as they have in the past) and selling them.

After the freeze:

Code:

Balance, BTC                % Coins
(0 - 0.001)                  0.14%
[0.001 - 0.01)	             1.34%
[0.01 - 0.1)                 7.19%
[0.1 - 1)                    28.40%
[1 - 10)                     62.93%

[200BTCreward]

Yes, they will. addresses holding 1-10 bitcoins will have 63% of all of the coins.

Code:

Bitcoin:
[1,000 - 10,000)	         2060         0.01%   (0.01%)	  5,266,096 BTC	    $332,164,968,947          27.92%  (41.91%)
[10,000 - 100,000)	           83            0%      (0%)     2,063,607 BTC     $130,164,387,832          10.94%  (13.99%)
[100,000 - 1,000,000)               3            0%      (0%)       574,215 BTC      $36,219,249,792           3.04%   (3.04%)

~ 2,000 addresses (~ 40% of supply) or ~ 16,000 addresses (~ 63% of supply)

Code:

new fork:
[1 - 10)                     62.93%           660653 addresses

~ 660,000 addresses (~ 63% of supply) or top 2,000 addresses would hold max. 0.4% of supply (2,000 addresses x 10 BTC / 5,000,000 BTC supply of new fork)

and most addresses have 1 - 2 BTC.

Furthermore, there is nothing that prevents people from accumulating large numbers of coins (as they have in the past) and selling them.

They would pump the price in regions where they couldn't buy that percentage of amount as a whale.

[aoluain]

So limiting the amount of coins and the amount of coins allowed in any one
wallet wont prevent anyone from buying and selling.

Therefore whales will still be able to accumulate large amounts of the limited
coin over time the issue the OP has a problem with will exist again
as odolvlobo states.

This smacks of "take it off the rich and give it to the ones that dont have it",
Its like some sort of archaic communist approach to making Bitcoin "Better"

[200BTCreward]

All changes and upgrades to the protocol should strive to maintain and reinforce these Principles of Bitcoin

• 21 million coins.
• No censorship: Nobody should be able to prevent valid txs from being confirmed.
• Open-Source: Bitcoin source code should always be open for anyone to read, modify, copy, share.
• Permissionless: No arbitrary gatekeepers should ever prevent anybody from being part of the network (user, node, miner, etc).
• Pseudonymous: No ID should be required to own, use Bitcoin.
• Fungible: All coins are equal and should be equally spendable.
• Irreversible Transactions: Confirmed blocks should be set in stone. Blockchain History should be immutable.

After the hard fork date all above mentioned points will be valid for this fork except point 1: supply of ~5,000,000 BTC instead of 21,000,000 BTC.

Therefore whales will still be able to accumulate large amounts of the limited
coin over time the issue the OP has a problem with will exist again
as odolvlobo states.

If someone wants to become a whale, so it is also possible here. But it will be very difficult as there won't be sellers with large amounts of Bitcoin.