Topic: If you could hard fork Bitcoin right now, what changes would you make? - page 2. (Read 503 times)
August 20, 2020, 06:55:36 AM
i bet you that most of those that sponsored hardfork in the past are regretting it. Everything they plan to add to bitcoin might have succeeded but they are no more bitcoin again, are not not relevent. I dont think anonymity holds any big importance in the coin and reactions by government and organisation reduces any support. A lot had been done to make transaction faster and safe but I want bitcoin to be more engaged in daily exchange for goods everywhere.
August 20, 2020, 06:40:51 AM
This is a really good questions and I guess it really all depends on what the coins is going to be used for/ main purpose. For one I would make sure that there are no full privacy aspects associated with the coin, do something to try and speed up tx's. Somehow I would also like to make bitcoin more centralized. I think with the Dev team, there is absolutely an aspect of centralization. I'm not sure how to change that, if even possible, however.
August 20, 2020, 06:19:40 AM
I'm not a tech savvy person,but I would change two things in my hardforked version of Bitcoin.
All the complex mathematical tasks that are executed during BTC mining should be used for something useful.
I don't know what exactly.Maybe there is a way for scientists to use the enormous power of the Bitcoin miners.
Another thing is to somewhat reduce the electricity costs of BTC mining.I don't know how this can be achieved,but that such innovation would be great.
All the complex mathematical tasks that are executed during BTC mining should be used for something useful.
I don't know what exactly.Maybe there is a way for scientists to use the enormous power of the Bitcoin miners.
Another thing is to somewhat reduce the electricity costs of BTC mining.I don't know how this can be achieved,but that such innovation would be great.
August 20, 2020, 03:23:36 AM
If I could hardfork Bitcoin right now and had the technical capability to further develop it, the change I would do is to make it unforkable! 
How? Why? What about upgrades, and improvements like Schnorr and Taproot?
I believe everyone can agree that Bitcoin will need to hard fork, as a final option, if it went to a choice of life or death for the network.
If I'm not mistaken, those upgrades and improvements you've mentioned could often be implemented by core developers with a soft fork except for some upgrades that really need hard forking.
But Bitcoin might need to hard fork in the future, WHEN there comes a life or death situation for the network. If it's life or death, I believe the upgrade will get consensus, and won't split the network in two.
Quote
With this, I was implying that Bitcoin could not be hard forked with any other entities/developers like what happened to Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, etc... other than Bitcoin's core developers since they can do a hard fork should there will be a need to do so. Imho.
They're shitcoins forever, never Bitcoin. Litecoin has as much claim as Bitcoin Cash/SV/Gold to be Bitcoin, zero.
August 19, 2020, 05:07:51 PM
Moreover, I would think of implementing procedures required to block the addresses that are known to belong to scammers (blocking the address and not accepting any transactions from it onto the network would be a decision requiring some sort of consensus apart from strong evidence in order to limit the possibility of abuse).
I dunno... that one feels like it needs a "slippery slope" argument in response.
The total inability to freeze payments is considered a fundamental tenet by some. Fungibility is also an important consideration we need to be careful not to screw with. Not to mention that creating a method in which to determine "guilt" in a decentralised fashion, that couldn't be tampered with, corrupted or gamed, and that didn't involve elevating a person or group to a position of authority to act as judge or jury seems an unfathomable conundrum to solve first.
August 19, 2020, 08:35:21 AM
I am not a technical guy but I would suggest to work on improving the speed of Tx and have a cap in fees. There are people out there who pays crazy fees and force others to follow them too if the tx is urgent to get at-least one confirmation.
Same here. If there's something that can be done to solve the scalability issue via hard fork, I would go for it. I would also go for fixing what will inevitably have to be fixed eventually (the bug is widely discussed in this thread). Moreover, I would think of implementing procedures required to block the addresses that are known to belong to scammers (blocking the address and not accepting any transactions from it onto the network would be a decision requiring some sort of consensus apart from strong evidence in order to limit the possibility of abuse). I would also divide satoshis into smaller units just in case there comes a time when it will come in handy. 
August 19, 2020, 08:14:31 AM
I am not a technical guy but I would suggest to work on improving the speed of Tx and have a cap in fees. There are people out there who pays crazy fees and force others to follow them too if the tx is urgent to get at-least one confirmation.
Yeah! this is one of the major problems some are facing when they don't have their own BTC wallet. When they only using exchanges wallet, they force to go with the flow about the exchange's transaction fees and it varies from time to time especially when the BTC price is rising. I have encountered this kind of problem when I don't have enough transaction fees to move my BTC and wait for the price to subside to successfully execute my transaction with enough transaction fees.
August 19, 2020, 06:01:10 AM
If I could hardfork Bitcoin right now and had the technical capability to further develop it, the change I would do is to make it unforkable!
How? Why? What about upgrades, and improvements like Schnorr and Taproot?
I believe everyone can agree that Bitcoin will need to hard fork, as a final option, if it went to a choice of life or death for the network.
If I'm not mistaken, those upgrades and improvements you've mentioned could often be implemented by core developers with a soft fork except for some upgrades that really need hard forking.
With this, I was implying that Bitcoin could not be hard forked with any other entities/developers like what happened to Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, etc... other than Bitcoin's core developers since they can do a hard fork should there will be a need to do so. Imho.
August 19, 2020, 02:45:20 AM
If I could hardfork Bitcoin right now and had the technical capability to further develop it, the change I would do is to make it unforkable!
How? Why? What about upgrades, and improvements like Schnorr and Taproot?
I believe everyone can agree that Bitcoin will need to hard fork, as a final option, if it went to a choice of life or death for the network.
August 19, 2020, 01:06:35 AM
the change I would do is to make it unforkable!
I like your suggestion! We no longer need to create more hardforks because couple of it are already existing and it is enough. Besides, it might become a strong competitor of btc in the future. We don't want to see the pioneer not lying on the top, right? Don't get me wrong, tx fees and other lack of features of bitcoin s*cks. But at the end of the day, it's mother of all crypto which I get used to
. Among the coins in the market, my biggest respect is into it. Yup! Too many BTC clones would eventually dilute the crypto market and at the same time fraudsters are using its popularity in creating would be BTC alter egos that are eventually used to commit illicit schemes as evident by most BTC clones that offers no real feature compared to its original.
This in turn contributes to the negative perception of some people towards BTC and other cryptocurrencies that is why they are hesitant to join the crypto bandwagon. Imho.
August 19, 2020, 01:02:26 AM
the change I would do is to make it unforkable!
I like your suggestion! We no longer need to create more hardforks because couple of it are already existing and it is enough.We cannot expect everyone involved in the network to agree all the time.
Anyone can also copy the codes because it's open source.
August 18, 2020, 09:46:22 PM
one of the biggest selling points of altcoins like XRP and EOS to the less-knowledgeable people is their "cheap price".
It is a selling point for those coins but it cannot be implemented in bitcoin as it will destroy the market and billions of dollars are at stake and the developers will not mess with that knowing the consequences 
.I'm curious, how will that actually "destroy the market"? It's pretty much like a stock split, which is in no way damaging at all, it just makes it more "price friendly" in the perspective of the masses. In fact, this doesn't even need to be changed through a soft fork. This can easily be changed on the client-side without touching the actual blockchain's codebase.
August 18, 2020, 08:34:01 PM
the change I would do is to make it unforkable!
I like your suggestion! We no longer need to create more hardforks because couple of it are already existing and it is enough. Besides, it might become a strong competitor of btc in the future. We don't want to see the pioneer not lying on the top, right? Don't get me wrong, tx fees and other lack of features of bitcoin s*cks. But at the end of the day, it's mother of all crypto which I get used to
. Among the coins in the market, my biggest respect is into it. I would only improve it's fungibility which would make it an even better form of money than it currently is.
Bitcoin bought here in my country can be interchange with the bitcoin bought there in yours because they are identical and both part of the whole 21 million supply. Hmm, what do you mean exactly of the word "fungibility"? 
August 18, 2020, 07:45:04 PM
I would only improve it's fungibility which would make it an even better form of money than it currently is.
August 18, 2020, 07:43:05 PM
If I could hardfork Bitcoin right now and had the technical capability to further develop it, the change I would do is to make it unforkable!
August 18, 2020, 02:44:32 PM
I am not a technical guy but i would suggest to focus on the anonymity, as bitcoin's scripting system presented limitations in terms of privacy.
I in fact love this pseudo anonymity. This is one of the great reason for Bitcoin to be used by everyone.Additional layer of anonymity can be optional, just like segwit fork, it's still possible to use legacy addresses.
August 18, 2020, 02:30:10 PM
I am not a technical guy but I would suggest to work on improving the speed of Tx and have a cap in fees. There are people out there who pays crazy fees and force others to follow them too if the tx is urgent to get at-least one confirmation.
^ This is similar to what I am thinking maybe the fees should be on minimum, for example, the fee that I would like to transfer is 0.1 BTC then the minimum tx fee that I will work with is 0.00001, a transaction between 0.001 to 0.1 BTC, no matter what could be the future value, and I will call it a "Minimum Eco-Friendly fee". But I think the fee will depend on the mempool condition, if it is congested, you need to pay high fees for faster transactions. Nevertheless, the problem of bitcoin is the speed of the transaction and the fee. 
August 18, 2020, 08:47:14 AM
Dynamic block size based on lower-end estimation of hardware (CPU, RAM, storage, etc.) and internet growth. Even Raspberry Pi 4 can handle 4 million weight block size limit easily.
It's fully possible, but optional privacy feature isn't really useful.
I am not a technical guy but i would suggest to focus on the anonymity, as bitcoin's scripting system presented limitations in terms of privacy. Some other cryptocurrencies afford a stronger privacy model than Bitcoin, like Grin and Monero..., so if there a possibility to improve the bitcoin network system by additional features to make it fully anonymous and surpass the fact that it is psydo-anonyme.
It's fully possible, but optional privacy feature isn't really useful.
August 18, 2020, 03:45:55 AM
I think a solution to make mining less centralized would be interesting. However, I don't know if that could be technically possible.
I know that just changing to GPU mining it would be centralized again because people would create super GPU's and just a few companies dominate this market (and,nvidia erc)
It is impossible to see a decentralized mining space as you need huge capital to run these mining farms and not everyone will be willing to risk to spend the huge capital necessary to maintain these farms, GPU mining will not change anything. I know that just changing to GPU mining it would be centralized again because people would create super GPU's and just a few companies dominate this market (and,nvidia erc)
one of the biggest selling points of altcoins like XRP and EOS to the less-knowledgeable people is their "cheap price".
It is a selling point for those coins but it cannot be implemented in bitcoin as it will destroy the market and billions of dollars are at stake and the developers will not mess with that knowing the consequences .now devs are happy with 4mb bloat
remove the dodgy math code that segregates and mishandles tx data by not counting certain portions.
this alone causes there to be less true utility for the 4mb space devs now deem as ok
it limits tx scaling. and also causes tx fee mismanagement
If this proposal could remove the limits in scaling why not make a proposal to the developers. remove the dodgy math code that segregates and mishandles tx data by not counting certain portions.
this alone causes there to be less true utility for the 4mb space devs now deem as ok
it limits tx scaling. and also causes tx fee mismanagement
August 18, 2020, 02:21:18 AM
OP, if everyone reached consensus, and there was a way to scale on-chain, increase on-chain privacy, but not increase the block size? It should be that in my opinion.
Jump to: