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

StevenS

full member

Activity: 206

Merit: 100

Quote from: oceans on August 31, 2014, 01:55:07 PM

Definitely has to be the transaction time. That is really a pain and needs to be solved in my opinion as it leaves you with a long wait for confirmations.

Please give an example, because I don't see a problem.

I have spent bitcoin in 2 places: Overstock.com and Ocean Blue Sushi.

On Overstock.com, I checked out with Bitcoin, paid, and received my shipment in a few days. PayPal would not have been any faster.

At the restaurant, I asked to pay with bitcoin after the meal. The waitress brought a tablet device with a Bitcoin address and an amount (after I entered the tip amount). I paid with my mobile app (Mycelium), and after a few seconds she said: "Thank you for your payment."

In both the web and the brick-and-mortar cases, I didn't wait. I paid, and went on my way. What is the problem we are trying to solve here?

counter

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 500

Time is on our side, yes it is!

It would be nice to be able to remove the transparency of the Blockchain from time to time. Some more options to have anonymity is always nice this day in age. I'm not sure it would prove to be a great decision but with privacy issues the way they are these days I'm not against at least having more options to protect and secure data and transactions.

I think as a whole it would help with cleaning up the Alt scene of new coins claiming to be anonymous and not really offering anything of value to the market. More quality of Bitcoin is less quantity of pump and dump alt coins if you ask me. I understand this would have a upside and downside but I think it's worth implementing.

oceans

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Definitely has to be the transaction time. That is really a pain and needs to be solved in my opinion as it leaves you with a long wait for confirmations. Having better transaction times might make way for people wanting to get into using bitcoin who are quite impatient and don't want to be waiting for confirmations.

cyberpinoy

hero member

Activity: 1008

Merit: 502

My answer is very simple,I would add an actual demand for it. Right now it is not in demand, it has no demand and from what i can see the developers have nothing in mind to create a demand for it, so its value rests in the simplest form ----> whos buying and whos selling and the stronger side decides its value. At the present moment the sellers are winning as the value is only 478 dollars a coin.

marcotheminer

legendary

Activity: 2072

Merit: 1049

┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴

Quote from: BitcoinBadger on August 29, 2014, 10:56:39 AM

Quote from: marcotheminer on August 20, 2014, 12:23:29 PM

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

I think they are fine, unless you do too many deals/transactions per day..

Works well for me, I am good with it.

Well thats coming from, most likely, a personal (consumer) user. From a business point of view it would be much harder to use due to these time frames.

BitcoinBadger

member

Activity: 111

Merit: 10

Quote from: marcotheminer on August 20, 2014, 12:23:29 PM

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

I think they are fine, unless you do too many deals/transactions per day..

Works well for me, I am good with it.

btcracer1

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

I would change the bitcoin core wallet and modify it to work like a lightweight client (electrum - armory etc).

wasserman99

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitbaby on August 28, 2014, 03:46:10 PM

Quote from: marcotheminer on August 20, 2014, 12:23:29 PM

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

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.

I think a better solution would be more consumer education as to how to employ common sense to protect your money. People are very much used to the consumer protections associated with credit cards and are not used to having to protect themselves against scams like this.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: bitbaby on August 28, 2014, 03:46:10 PM

Quote from: marcotheminer on August 20, 2014, 12:23:29 PM

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

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.

bitbaby

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: marcotheminer on August 20, 2014, 12:23:29 PM

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

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.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: itsAj on August 26, 2014, 05:29:32 PM

Quote from: the joint on August 26, 2014, 11:16:07 AM

Quote from: itsAj on August 25, 2014, 08:42:15 PM

Quote from: the joint on August 25, 2014, 12:53:28 PM

Quote from: odolvlobo on August 25, 2014, 12:08:39 PM

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.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: mistercoin on August 28, 2014, 11:17:24 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on August 28, 2014, 11:15:10 AM

Quote from: mistercoin on August 28, 2014, 11:06:28 AM

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. Grin

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.

mistercoin

legendary

Activity: 1051

Merit: 1000

https://r.honeygain.me/XEDDM2B07C

Quote from: odolvlobo on August 28, 2014, 11:15:10 AM

Quote from: mistercoin on August 28, 2014, 11:06:28 AM

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. Grin

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: mistercoin on August 28, 2014, 11:06:28 AM

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

legendary

Activity: 1051

Merit: 1000

https://r.honeygain.me/XEDDM2B07C

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.

unexecuted

member

Activity: 175

Merit: 10

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.

BitsBitsBits

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 20, 2014, 12:34:25 PM

the 21 mio limit Tongue

Why is that an issue? Tongue

Or is that cause you want it to be double that, litecoinguy? Cheesy

cccarnation

member

Activity: 146

Merit: 10

One Token to Move Anything Anywhere

It would be my holdings Grin

wasserman99

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: StevenS on August 26, 2014, 02:24:59 PM

Quote from: barbarousrelic on August 26, 2014, 10:09:16 AM

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.

marcotheminer

legendary

Activity: 2072

Merit: 1049

┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴

Any more opinions - bump

Topic: [Opinions] IF you could improve/add/remove 1 thing to bitcoin what would it be? (Read 5743 times)