Topic: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? - page 4. (Read 1033 times)

Your response was hilarious but the analogy doesn't work. It's not like a divorce. I still stand by my explanation.

Anyone is free to hard fork Bitcoin at will, just like Bitcoin Cash. That's why we saw so many similar spinoffs like Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Diamond. It's not a "chain split" because that implies a network partition, which implies a compatible protocol -- that's a mutual condition. In the case of a hard fork like Bitcoin Cash, the fork just gets ignored by Bitcoin.


Compromise is not always possible. However, since these are permissionless and open source protocols, the next best thing when developers reach an impasse is to fork the protocol. That happens in FOSS development all the time.

I don't like calling it a "split" because that gives undeserved authority to those leaving the consensus. It makes it sound like a 50-50 split when in reality, all the Bitcoin forks (including Bitcoin Cash) have tiny user bases and ecosystems compared to Bitcoin.

It is not that "ideal" coin, you might be saying this because of its popularity and its price.

Don't get me wrong though, I will be doing the same as you. I will not be changing anything to the Bitcoin we have now as it might be looked at as a forked Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto has other plans for Bitcoin in which other forkers did but whatever angle you look at it, it is still a forked Bitcoin, an altcoin.

[/quote]
All forks do is prove that you can't replicate the trust and history that Bitcoin has earned.
[/quote]

does appear that the forks have watered down the soup

To be honest, I wouldn’t change anything as I believe that Bitcoin is an ideal coin in the cryptocurrency market

you do know the "dev state" instigated the FORK/split.. bch came HOURS after, as a result of it

i cant actually believe you truly said that there was no split/fork and then mentioned the split/fork by saying there was no split/fork after the split/fork.
the split/fork was the the split/fork..
it got rid of the opposers so that the "dev state" would get their faked 100% loyalty count

put it this way
imagine you were in 2016 married.. but wanted to get involved with other people(networks). but only 35% of your family and friends thought it was a good idea to see other people(networks)

and so in march 2017 you decided things are not right no one is happy so you will get a divorce and you want the divorce finalised in august 2017 because you want to declare yourself 100% single by november so you can be involved with other people(networks)

so the divorce happened. you signed first and hours later your disgruntled parter went away to start their own life and now your able to declare you are 100% single and able to see other people(networks)

you are now saying there was no divorce after the divorce, and also saying that you have always been 100% single
(facepalm)

i truly think that squatter has just made the most stupid and ignorant myth to pretend that events didnt happen
sorry squatter but august 1st is august first. you cant hide it or pretend it didnt happen
even the "dev state" admit it happened. they gave it a few buzzwords. they even made hats which they wore to be proud of the divorce. they even changed their twitter account names to show which friend they would follow after the divorce.

p.s
i am neither a friend of the ex husband or ex wife of the previously united family. i just am someone that in this analogy is facepalming that the divorce occurred instead of all those involved communicating and coming to a compromise to keep it all united and move forward. rather than resorting to a divorce (which the "dev state" loudly and proudly call a bilateral split)

I think that everything is fine and I wouldn't have changed anything even if I could do this. I think that btc is the best coin and it is worth it. To my mind, it is better to leave everything as it is

Then I should've rephrased that as prime reference unit.

It's too late now for enough people to agree to start dicking around with decimal points. For some reason stating that unit bias is a thing has always been shat on here. I disagree. I've seen it endlessly in the real world.

Satoshis are the base unit of Bitcoin, if you look at raw transactions, the amounts are represented in satoshis - on a protocol level there's no other units. 1 Bitcoin  = 100mil satoshis is just what your wallet displays for convenience, and it's trivial to implement any other units. Electrum has an option for displaying milibitcoins.

If something is open source then it's forkable. That's how it works. If Bitcoin had been closed source we wouldn't be here today because people wouldn't have paid it the slightest attention. All forks do is prove that you can't replicate the trust and history that Bitcoin has earned.

If I were Satoshi 2.0, I would ensure that further fork of Bitcoin doesn't happen anymore. I know early adopters of bitcoin won't like my side of wishful thinking as that would prevent them from coming into unplanned wealth which forks have always provided for them.

I'm too technically disabled to make an informed comment on this but if I were planning something -

If I were truly committed to it being used as an actual currency I would've gone for XMR's ongoing trickle of inflation. Human nature won't change and people will hoard something that deflates. That also clears up any doubts about the end of the block reward.

I would've started off with Satoshis as the base unit, or units made up of 100 Satoshis. I know unit bias is stupid. People are stupid.

I'll leave all the other aspects to better educated people.

I wouldn't change anything. Bitcoin is working just fine as it is. I also wouldn't want to be the person in charge, because it would kill decentralization and make ma a target. Things could have been much worse for Bitcoin if Satoshi remained active and at some point CIA or some other agency tracked him down. We never know how things would work out if just one thing was different. If there was no Mark Karpeles and his scam exchange, maybe Bitcoin would be worth 50000 dollars now?

There's no team in particular, just hypothetical.  Some great insights in this thread though, wow.

What chain split? Segwit reached the 95% threshold and activation went off without a hitch. There was never any network partition -- no orphaned chains post-fork, no lost transactions, nothing.

If you're talking about Bitcoin Cash, that was a new protocol that copied Bitcoin's ledger and launched at block height 478558. It was no more a "chain split" than any of the other dozens of Bitcoin forks (like Bitcoin Diamond and Super Bitcoin) were.

no risk of chain splits......................
........ apart from the one caused in august 2017 to actually get segwit activated

for years peopl have been begging for devs to scale bitcoin. devs came up with a scaling roadmap. segwit was the stepping stone for that.. so critisizing segwit for not helping scale bitcoin is warranted.
segwits goal was to make using normal bitcoin transaction formats 4x more expensive.
segwits goal was to make bitcoin more compatible with a separate network thats not a blockchain and not a feature for bitcoin. segwits goal was to open a backdoor so devs can now push things into bitcoin without consensus

so step one of actually scaling bitcoin. get rid of the hideous witness scale factor, which will achieve:
1. transaction bytes being again counted correctly and fully
2. transactions not being pushed up in price
3. the 4mb 'weight' actually being fully utilisable
4. we may actually see transaction counts finally surpass the 600k a day limit thats been around for nearly 10 years now

Segwit's goal wasn't the blocksize increase, so it's wrong to criticize it for it. And being opt-in is the result of softfork, and softforks are great because they are much less disruptive than hardforks, so there's almost no risk of chain splits.

It's also wrong to say that SegWit was complex, all you had to do is update your wallet software and create a new SegWit-compatible wallet. Some services did this only after a few days or a week after the fork, big services like Coinbase just didn't care about their customers, which resulted in huge fees later in 2017.

What kind of development team has stated that it wants to run Bitcoin 2.0?

I think people need fast and cheap transactions. Now the transaction rate is very long

in my opinion, BTC today is perfect, only a segwit problems that will help with transactions in a block.

I hope, BTC transactions can be used for every feature in the mobile.

I would change the fact that I was in charge because that is not decentralized and that is not then bitcoin as it should be. Not to mention if bitcoin were to be centralized I would be a completely useless person to have in charge.

if you at least once got out of the mindset of needing 'candidates as lead developers' you would then see what decentralisation really means.

where anyone could then propose new features. and without mandated activation dates or coercion. devs actually think about the bitcoin communities needs and make code and release code that would get activated when the community see the true benefits of letting it activate.