Topic: If this is doable what will you add or remove? - page 2. (Read 457 times)

I think that everyone's going to want the same thing for bitcoin, I mean the fact that everyone can benefit from it is probably the best thing that can happen to bitcoin, no doubts about this one. Another thing that will probably be of big help if I was a developer, I would deal with the speed of transactions, that means that faster confirmations and more transaction would be done in a short time. I can see why you think that it's going to be faster when the fees are lower, I mean people don't really like taxes at all and fees are working like that so lowering them kind of makes it look like you're lowering the taxes.

     From what I've seen, the only thing that Bitcoin holders don't like the most is that when the ordinals and runes do something, their fees increase too much. And it's really a headache,
so if I'm one of the developers, I'll keep it low as long as the fee is only moderate and not very low. 

     Because in this way, the number of others who don't know about bitcoin but who will see its potential will for sure increase its adoption. In this way a lot of bitcoin holders will be more happyif they will see the fee is maintain its low every time there is a transaction.

High transaction fees. I am not sure how exactly but I would want to reduce or remove high transaction fees because this is one of the major issues that is killing Bitcoin. Users want to transact smaller value but it is very unfortunate that they can’t. Which is why other blockchains are loud about having low transaction fee. If Bitcoin fees were low, the number of users will greatly multiply.

I'm thinking of increasing the block size.

Increasing the block size means larger size per block, and that would potentially decrease the transaction fees, and the confirmation time would be faster. On the other hand, that would mean Bitcoin will be more centralized than it is today because only the large miners will be the one to handle those large blocks, and smaller ones will not.

TBH, it's very easy for us that are not developers to say what features we want to add in Bitcoin but in reality, adding one means compromising one as well like on what I said where increasing the block size means decreasing transaction fees, but it would be more centralized now. I guess this is the reason why developers are kind of thinking twice or thrice, sometimes hesitant to add additional features on to Bitcoin.

Exactly, that's also what I want to change in bitcoin. Recently,  the transaction fees are getting too high, and the network is so crowded that it will take time before you can receive or complete a transaction. So I also want to change a little bit about the bitcoin transaction fees and network. I know it will be a hard thing, but as we said, if we just want to, right? And another thing I want to change in bitcoin is its max supply. We know that there is only a limited bitcoin supply that can be mined, and after that, there will be no bitcoin mining,so I want to increase it a little bit, let's say 30 to 50. Because currently we have only 21 million limited supplies. why?  Well, so that we can still earn from mining, and of course, we never know what will happen after all the bitcoins are mined.

The bitcoin features are well designed. I don’t see anything that we need to add because since the existence of bitcoin, everything has been going smoothly. If to say the currency is facing some challenges, we would’ve said the developers should add some new features so that we can get rid of them, but since everything is going normal, I don’t think there is anything to reduce in the features of bitcoin.

And if I should add, the only thing I will do is find a way that will stop the mempool from congesting regardless of the transaction because that thing is getting worse sometimes and you don’t really like it. I even get upset sometimes if I try to run a transaction for too long or for too many days. Especially when I’m in need of money.

Yup that's the first thing that came into my mind that I'd block all that useless junk. I guess that would count as adding and removing. I'd add rules to remove ordinals.
It might not be a bad idea to add an option to mix bitcoin. I feel like if mixing was included in the original code, bitcoin would become even more private and secure, but despite my opinion, I probably wouldn't go that far. I'd be afraid to break bitcoin somehow. US agencies would probably target me for doing that as they hate privacy and mixing.

To those that want to increase the block size, this was already discussed years ago and most people did not want that. Small blocks aren't ideal, but they've worked so far and messing with that could break the balance that worked for a decade. It's better to build layers like lightning than mess with the original protocol.

SCALABILITY!

We arent that blind nor not knowing about this main issue or problem of Bitcoin on which talks about scalability on which this could cause up that network congestion which in resulting into those peak
Network fee on which it do really sucks if it happens.

Here's some precise words in regarding to this:
The Bitcoin scalability problem refers to the limited capability of the Bitcoin network to handle large amounts of transaction data on its platform in a short span of time.[1] It is related to the fact that records (known as blocks) in the Bitcoin blockchain are limited in size and frequency
Source

If this one would really be resolved out then Bitcoin would really be already perfect when it comes to payment option because there's no way for fees
to soar up. 

Pretend to be a Bitcoin developer? Yes trying to do something that can launch transactions without constrained network traffic that makes transaction costs high so that it can interfere with businesses that use bitcoin — fees are always low.

Apart from that I do not want to shift anything because it is quite satisfied with Bitcoin.

Honestly, being a Bitcoin developer is my dream.

I'd remove the Taproot upgrade loophole that allowed ordinals stuff to happen, thereby keeping NFT stuff from taking away space from monetary transactions. That's the only "bad" thing I can think of that's happening with Bitcoin.

One thing I would add or change would be probably just double the block size. Nothing crazy cuz obviously you don't scale at the base layer. The block size is just the arbitrary amount Satoshi chose a long time ago so it isn't necessarily the best size. A 2x would allow on-chain fees to stay cheaper for longer into the future and more importantly let people more quickly onboard to LN in the future when bitcoin starts being used for daily payments and that would be the main reason for a slightly larger block size, to allow more use of L2, all while keeping storage needed for nodes low and keeping the network decentralized. I feel like 4x or larger would harm decentralization but 2x is a big enough change to allow a lot more L2 onboarding, while being small enough to not effect individuals' ability to easily and cheaply run nodes.




The only other Bitcoin issue I can think of is the possibility for the 2 million or so bitcoin held in pay-to-public-key transactions from like 2009/2010/2011 era to be hacked once quantum computing becomes mature in the decades to come. I'm not 100% on that but from what I've read quantum computing will eventually allow that to happen. So if that's true, I'd skip the small blocksize increase and instead I'd hard fork to invalidate any unspent output sitting in that format, giving old holders plenty of time (years) in advance to move their bitcoin to later formats that are secure against QC. Thus eliminating the potential huge QC problem of a couple million bitcoin getting hacked and dumped on the market in the future. If my reading is wrong and that won't actually be a problem, then yeah just the 2x block size increase.

Though I believe that Bitcoin is doing pretty well for itself despite all the hurdles and everything, however, if I were to add something to Bitcoin's network then I would probably go with increasing the block size so that a block could contain more transactions speeding up transactions because if a block could contain more txs, it will clear the mempool quickly and there will be no network congestion after that because network congestion causes a lot of issues for Bitcoin users and when it stays for long, it starts to make you annoyed after one point.

If we talk about removing one thing from it, then as said by some other members as well, I would remove ordinals and other stuff that make Bitcoin's network congested from time to time and that makes people making transactions in Bitcoin on a daily basis have a hard time because not everyone can pay a lot of money in fees.

Nice suggestion, i wouldn’t have thought of anything better than this if I was a developer and have something to come up with to add to the invention of bitcoin. The high transaction fees is gradually affecting a lot of people, especially small holders into delaying their transactions and receiving their coins in a later time due to this high transaction fees they can’t tolerate. Only whales investors in bitcoin don’t feel too bothered too much about this transaction fees because of how seamless it is to them when they want to make a transaction on the blockchain with out minding the price at that time.


Nice suggestion too, for now I can’t think of any demerit to your opinion but how possible can it be because if you check how bitcoin was designed and how these wallets address are been generated, we can’t have more users getting their account created with almost different wallets at the same time.

I have always reasoned that wallet addresses are too long to commit to memory, you cannot give someone your wallet address without copying it and sending it to them.
If it were possible, maybe I will like to shorten the wallet address and make it shorter so it can be easily memorized. If it is short and memorable, you can provide your address to someone to pay you in crypto more easily, I do not know if there's a demerit to this?

I would like to add just a Bitcoin bank if I had the chance, because I have been thinking lately that, the problem why Bitcoin is hardly being accepted in many countries is due to the fact that it hasn't yet had a structural building like branches in different regions of the world. Also I'm addition, it should have a physical currency that is spendable.

I would like to remove the hype and effect of whale movements, because this does a lot to affect prices and demand for BTC .

Plus one on this one and from that Bitcoin being the new form of digital money will become a reality as we can pay using Bitcoin for candies with 1sats/vb fee and we're good at that right? If not I don't know what is. Transaction speed also makes sense of course.

I don't think to add 1 thing and to remove 1 thing you only have to be a developer, there are other requirements too. But for the sake of the question, I will say, I will add dapps to it, but that's already been happening, and if I am to remove one thing that would be runes, ordinals, and BRC-20 tokens. Haha I know the additional and removal don't seem to compatible with each other as dapps would also bring the same issue as these runes and ordinals will brought and that would be increment in the fee.

All I want is, no increase in the btc transaction fee, to minimize that, we need scalability in BTC blockchain, and to increase the scalability many mechanisms are already in place, like taproot, segwit, lightning network etc. But I think we need more, I don't have the term in mind, as I am pretending to be a developer so I can't have the knowledge of developer while pretending, haha.

I believe it would be a definite and more usable solution to the ordinance problem with the mempool, sometimes the crazy sats for transaction of Bitcoin gets so crazy that's becomes really really annoying so if am a developer and asked to changed I believe it would definitely be the removal of that issue although I know that the network solutions for that problem is the lightning network solution but the slow adoption to the issue just makes it seem unsolvable.

I don't want to be the first person who feels smarter than Satoshi, I also don't want to assume that Satoshi made a mistake on a feature of Bitcoin by removing one that Satoshi had perfected. Everything had been very carefully considered before he launched Bitcoin to the public, Satoshi had also perfected Bitcoin before he left it.
If I had the ability to add and remove just one thing from Bitcoin, of course I would never do it because I really respect Satoshi as the person who created Bitcoin. So far I am very satisfied with all the features available in Bitcoin, there is not a single drawback that makes me feel like I have to delete it and then add new features to it.

Removing the feature that allows runes and inscriptions that clog out the bitcoin network is probably the only thing that I care about the most, that's it. Not to mention that no one will really hate me for it besides the miners and it will eventually cool down anyway and they won't mind anymore. I don't really like inscriptions anyway, I mean what does it even do for the network? It only makes things more difficult for people to do transactions because it gets expensive when these people put a lot of it in the network.

Haha first of all I would love to add my name to Bitcoin's development contributors list, secondly, on the Bitcoin network, I would first add an FCFS-based transaction processing system regardless of how high a fee a particular transaction signer is paying to process his transaction. Hmm, I had already discussed this previously somewhere but seems like I'm still unsatisfied and want to know more why if it was implemented they removed it.

To achieve more efficiency let's split it into segments one for fee payers, one a regular random processing, and one based on FCFS, and these 3 segments should be processed in parallel.

Haha, just a random bluff never mind, well I will explain more if anyone wants to know with some technical terms as well, In the removal area I would love to remove the shity ordinals in order to achieve a more reliable system.