[Opinions] IF you could improve/add/remove 1 thing to bitcoin what would it be?

[the joint]

Faster confirmation times do have benefits:

Many transactions are never confirmed for one reason or another. If I am selling something, I want to make sure that I will eventually get the bitcoins. If a transaction is confirmed once, then it is extremely likely to be confirmed many times, even if the first is orphaned. So one confirmation is fine for me even if confirmation times are short, and shorter confirmation times are more convenient.

Another benefit is a better distribution of block rewards. If there are more block rewards, then the chances of getting a block reward is higher. That reduces the need for mining pools.

Yes, the largest benefit to short confirmation times is that 1 confirmation is infinitely better than 0 confirmations.  As a result, very short confirmation times are hands-down better for convenience-store-like transactions (assuming that the time isn't so short that you end up with intolerably high rates of orphans, etc.).  Really, anything beyond 15-30 seconds becomes a legitimate issue for these transaction types.

One confirmation is not better then 0/unconfirmed necessarily. If the confirmation time is too short then it would be very easy to attack the network and people would have a false sense of security when they see that a TX has n confirmations. When the block confirmation time is longer you will know that it will take more resources to double spend the TX (assuming there is a sufficient TX fee and the TX is well propagated)

I think this is nitpicking a little bit.  You're talking about a false sense of security from someone who assumes that 1 confirmation at an average of (for example) 30-second confirmation times provides the same level of security as 1 confirmation at an average of 10-minute confirmation times.  But, regardless of psychology, if you *had* to chose between 0 confirmations at n-second confirmation times or 1 confirmation at n-minus-m-second confirmation times, which would you pick?

The point is that one confirmation at any confirmation rate is preferable to 0 confirmations, and therefore *is* necessarily better.

[1714866152]

1714866152

[1714866152]

1714866152

[1714866152]

1714866152

[1714866152]

1714866152

[harrymmmm]

I would change two things:

1 Lower fees to allow micro payments
2 Faster transaction times

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244656.0

[StevenS]

But it would take resources to intentionally orphan the last block in order to double spend a transaction with 1 confirmation. It takes no resources to double spend a transaction with zero confirmations. So, there is some security improvement when you compare 0 confirmations and a longer block time, to 1 confirmation with a short block time.

I understand what you are saying.

But help me understand the Bitcoin protocol here. Let me know if I have some of this wrong:

The Bitcoin network is interconnected nodes that share unconfirmed transactions by broadcasting them among the nodes. A wallet application joins the network by connecting to one or more of these nodes. When BTC is sent from one wallet to another, it is sent through the network and the receiving wallet sees the transaction. A transaction must be verified by a node before it is sent to the next node. Part of this verification is a check to see if it duplicates an input from another transaction, either one in the blockchain or one in the unconfirmed pool.

Thus, it is difficult to double-spend because the transaction with a duplicate input would have to be introduced into the network before the 1st has propagated. Not only that, but the double-spend would only work if the recipient of the 2nd transaction was connected to a part of the network to which the 1st transaction hadn't been propagated.

Thus, to protect against a double-spend, the recipient only has to wait long enough for the transaction to propagate through most of the network. This is less time than the wait for the transaction to be confirmed in a block.

[remotemass]

I would: make all coins of an address that has not been used for 10 years be moved to a void address.
This would force everyone to move their coins to a new address once that time limit was about to be reached, and so we would always know how many coins are "alive".

[itsAj]

Faster confirmation times do have benefits:

Many transactions are never confirmed for one reason or another. If I am selling something, I want to make sure that I will eventually get the bitcoins. If a transaction is confirmed once, then it is extremely likely to be confirmed many times, even if the first is orphaned. So one confirmation is fine for me even if confirmation times are short, and shorter confirmation times are more convenient.

Another benefit is a better distribution of block rewards. If there are more block rewards, then the chances of getting a block reward is higher. That reduces the need for mining pools.

Yes, the largest benefit to short confirmation times is that 1 confirmation is infinitely better than 0 confirmations.  As a result, very short confirmation times are hands-down better for convenience-store-like transactions (assuming that the time isn't so short that you end up with intolerably high rates of orphans, etc.).  Really, anything beyond 15-30 seconds becomes a legitimate issue for these transaction types.

One confirmation is not better then 0/unconfirmed necessarily. If the confirmation time is too short then it would be very easy to attack the network and people would have a false sense of security when they see that a TX has n confirmations. When the block confirmation time is longer you will know that it will take more resources to double spend the TX (assuming there is a sufficient TX fee and the TX is well propagated)

I think this is nitpicking a little bit.  You're talking about a false sense of security from someone who assumes that 1 confirmation at an average of (for example) 30-second confirmation times provides the same level of security as 1 confirmation at an average of 10-minute confirmation times.  But, regardless of psychology, if you *had* to chose between 0 confirmations at n-second confirmation times or 1 confirmation at n-minus-m-second confirmation times, which would you pick?

The point is that one confirmation at any confirmation rate is preferable to 0 confirmations, and therefore *is* necessarily better.

I would disagree. My point is that 1 confirmation on a ten minute block chain is more secure then 10 confirmations are on a 1 minute block chain. The reason for this is because of the higher number of orphans that will occur on a 1 minute block chain.

In order to successfully double spend a TX that is well propagated throughout the network and contains an appropriate TX fee you generally need to find the next block after the TX is sent (you could also find enough consecutive blocks after the TX is sent but this would be more expensive). If you have a 1 minute block time then it will take less resources to find the next block (it will also take less resources to find enough consecutive blocks to overcome the chain that confirmed your TX).

[catlinhappy]

It would certainly be the restriction of transaction confirmation interval to one.

[Mars not Moon]

I think the present bitcoin system is pretty stable and working well. I have no problem with confirmation times either.

[barbarousrelic]

But it would take resources to intentionally orphan the last block in order to double spend a transaction with 1 confirmation. It takes no resources to double spend a transaction with zero confirmations. So, there is some security improvement when you compare 0 confirmations and a longer block time, to 1 confirmation with a short block time.

I understand what you are saying.

But help me understand the Bitcoin protocol here. Let me know if I have some of this wrong:

The Bitcoin network is interconnected nodes that share unconfirmed transactions by broadcasting them among the nodes. A wallet application joins the network by connecting to one or more of these nodes. When BTC is sent from one wallet to another, it is sent through the network and the receiving wallet sees the transaction. A transaction must be verified by a node before it is sent to the next node. Part of this verification is a check to see if it duplicates an input from another transaction, either one in the blockchain or one in the unconfirmed pool.

Thus, it is difficult to double-spend because the transaction with a duplicate input would have to be introduced into the network before the 1st has propagated. Not only that, but the double-spend would only work if the recipient of the 2nd transaction was connected to a part of the network to which the 1st transaction hadn't been propagated.

Thus, to protect against a double-spend, the recipient only has to wait long enough for the transaction to propagate through most of the network. This is less time than the wait for the transaction to be confirmed in a block.

You're close. Bitcoin nodes relay new transactions to each other, but they don't necessarily (and don't usually) mine a new block when relaying new transactions. Until a new block is mined that includes a new transaction, (usually 10 minutes on average, but this varies)  it is not certian which transaction will be included in the blockchain (confirmed) and which transaction will be ignored*. Miner software has to decide which one to include. It is up to the miner to decide how to rectify this situation, and I'm not certain how off-the-shelf miner software typically handles it. I've asked in this thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=758658.0



*And even when a new block is mined that includes your transaction, there is a small chance (if other miners quickly mine two blocks in a row without your transaction) that this block may be replaced by another block that doesn't include your transaction.

[marcotheminer]

Any more opinions - bump

[wasserman99]

But it would take resources to intentionally orphan the last block in order to double spend a transaction with 1 confirmation. It takes no resources to double spend a transaction with zero confirmations. So, there is some security improvement when you compare 0 confirmations and a longer block time, to 1 confirmation with a short block time.

I understand what you are saying.

But help me understand the Bitcoin protocol here. Let me know if I have some of this wrong:

The Bitcoin network is interconnected nodes that share unconfirmed transactions by broadcasting them among the nodes. A wallet application joins the network by connecting to one or more of these nodes. When BTC is sent from one wallet to another, it is sent through the network and the receiving wallet sees the transaction. A transaction must be verified by a node before it is sent to the next node. Part of this verification is a check to see if it duplicates an input from another transaction, either one in the blockchain or one in the unconfirmed pool.

Thus, it is difficult to double-spend because the transaction with a duplicate input would have to be introduced into the network before the 1st has propagated. Not only that, but the double-spend would only work if the recipient of the 2nd transaction was connected to a part of the network to which the 1st transaction hadn't been propagated.

Thus, to protect against a double-spend, the recipient only has to wait long enough for the transaction to propagate through most of the network. This is less time than the wait for the transaction to be confirmed in a block.

This is not 100% true. However it is true most of the time. In order for someone to get around this they would need to have access to mining resources that would include a block in it's found block that would double spend a TX prior to an unconfirmed TX being confirmed. For most smaller to medium sized transactions this risk would be pretty small.

[cccarnation]

It would be my holdings 

[BitsBitsBits]

the 21 mio limit  

Why is that an issue? Or is that cause you want it to be double that, litecoinguy?

[unexecuted]

Improve the architecture, use Zero-knowledge proofs so that you only need the headers plus the latest ZKP to know that it is a full valid chain, and then you'd only need the UTXO set to know your balance and spend your coins. And the headers would contain a Merkle tree hash of the current UTXO set in each block so you can directly see which known UTXO's have been spent even without needing to see the actual transactions, you just need them for incoming transactions to you.

[mistercoin]

I would add the ability to store data in the blockchain, such as music, text files and others, displacing the data across the networks computers.

[odolvlobo]

I would add the ability to store data in the blockchain, such as music, text files and others, displacing the data across the networks computers.

LOL Don't you think a block chain filled with music files would be a problem? Think about it.

[mistercoin]

I would add the ability to store data in the blockchain, such as music, text files and others, displacing the data across the networks computers.

LOL Don't you think a block chain filled with music files would be a problem? Think about it.

XD Perhaps. Maybe exclude the music files, and limit it to data like texts, and size-limited apps. Could also be used for things like date specific confirmations that require proof that such and such was done on X day.

[odolvlobo]

I would add the ability to store data in the blockchain, such as music, text files and others, displacing the data across the networks computers.

LOL Don't you think a block chain filled with music files would be a problem? Think about it.

XD Perhaps. Maybe exclude the music files, and limit it to data like texts, and size-limited apps. Could also be used for things like date specific confirmations that require proof that such and such was done on X day.

Maybe a separate peer-to-peer file sharing system would work better. That way every person wouldn't have to maintain a copy of every file. We could name it "bit-something", maybe "bit torrent". I like that name. Let's make it.

[the joint]

Faster confirmation times do have benefits:

Many transactions are never confirmed for one reason or another. If I am selling something, I want to make sure that I will eventually get the bitcoins. If a transaction is confirmed once, then it is extremely likely to be confirmed many times, even if the first is orphaned. So one confirmation is fine for me even if confirmation times are short, and shorter confirmation times are more convenient.

Another benefit is a better distribution of block rewards. If there are more block rewards, then the chances of getting a block reward is higher. That reduces the need for mining pools.

Yes, the largest benefit to short confirmation times is that 1 confirmation is infinitely better than 0 confirmations.  As a result, very short confirmation times are hands-down better for convenience-store-like transactions (assuming that the time isn't so short that you end up with intolerably high rates of orphans, etc.).  Really, anything beyond 15-30 seconds becomes a legitimate issue for these transaction types.

One confirmation is not better then 0/unconfirmed necessarily. If the confirmation time is too short then it would be very easy to attack the network and people would have a false sense of security when they see that a TX has n confirmations. When the block confirmation time is longer you will know that it will take more resources to double spend the TX (assuming there is a sufficient TX fee and the TX is well propagated)

I think this is nitpicking a little bit.  You're talking about a false sense of security from someone who assumes that 1 confirmation at an average of (for example) 30-second confirmation times provides the same level of security as 1 confirmation at an average of 10-minute confirmation times.  But, regardless of psychology, if you *had* to chose between 0 confirmations at n-second confirmation times or 1 confirmation at n-minus-m-second confirmation times, which would you pick?

The point is that one confirmation at any confirmation rate is preferable to 0 confirmations, and therefore *is* necessarily better.

I would disagree. My point is that 1 confirmation on a ten minute block chain is more secure then 10 confirmations are on a 1 minute block chain. The reason for this is because of the higher number of orphans that will occur on a 1 minute block chain.

In order to successfully double spend a TX that is well propagated throughout the network and contains an appropriate TX fee you generally need to find the next block after the TX is sent (you could also find enough consecutive blocks after the TX is sent but this would be more expensive). If you have a 1 minute block time then it will take less resources to find the next block (it will also take less resources to find enough consecutive blocks to overcome the chain that confirmed your TX).

But it's a completely different issue to talk about 1 confirmation on a ten-minute avg. block time vs. 10 confirmations on a one-minute avg. block time than it is to talk about 0 confirmations on a ten-minute avg. block time vs. 1 confirmation on a one-minute avg. block time.

Again, the point I'm getting at is simply about the importance of the very first confirmation.  No matter how you spin it, 1 confirmation regardless of the avg. block time is infinitely better than 0 confirmations at any avg. block time.

There's a huge difference between the two scenarios, and while you can debate (and be correct) about the false sense of security provided by confirmations with rapid avg. block times, it's undeniable that 1 confirmation is always better than 0.  Always.

[bitbaby]

AND why?
Just 1 thing, for I it would be transaction times, cause waiting for those confirmations is wayy too long sometimes  

I would like to see some improvements in security and scam prevention, I know it's almost impossible but I wish there was some way to catch people who take bitcoins and run away like all the website scams (wallets/mining) etc.

[odolvlobo]

AND why?
Just 1 thing, for I it would be transaction times, cause waiting for those confirmations is wayy too long sometimes  

I would like to see some improvements in security and scam prevention, I know it's almost impossible but I wish there was some way to catch people who take bitcoins and run away like all the website scams (wallets/mining) etc.

If you willingly give your money to an anonymous stranger somewhere on the planet, then there is nothing that Bitcoin can ever do to get it back.