Topic: [Opinions] IF you could improve/add/remove 1 thing to bitcoin what would it be? - page 6. (Read 5744 times)

Your suggestion is to make radical change to the protocol of BTC. There are plenty of altcoins out there you can choose from as you suggested, pow and pos combined.

More advertising

It was fairly novel back in the day to be able to tip people who posted stuff that was helpful. There hadn't been a way to do that before. We take it for granted now, but, being set up to receive tips was kind of a way of identifying ones self as someone who was trying to be helpful...

To be clear...are you referring to improving one thing about Bitcoin the technology or the ecosystem in general?

From a tech perspective: Bitcoin core, blockchain and user interface comprehensive security measures
From a broader ecosystem perspective: Bitcoin Branding, Marketing, PR and Media Relations

I would change two things:

1 Lower fees to allow micro payments
2 Faster transaction times

A transaction doesn't have to appear in a block to be confirmed. (Although appearing in a block is a higher level of confirmation.) If the transaction is accepted by a suitable number of nodes in the network, which can happen in seconds, then it is likely it is valid. An exception to this is an online transaction, for which it is easier to mount a double-spend attack, but online transactions don't require instant confirmation, because the product is typically sent hours later.

Summary: The 10-minute block time is not too long, because at a brick-and-mortar location, the transaction does not need to be confirmed in a block.

Wish 0 confirmations are enought at more places, most places require confirmations, but they offer no service that cannot be canceled later (like before the goods are really send). It would be only bit more work to cancel the order if not paid later for them and zero risk...

I understand confirmation is really necessary for instant services only

I would shorten the confirmation time. Ten minutes is a convenient number but there is no need for it to be so long. There are benefits to a shorter time. I would take a look at propagation times and the orphan block statistics of alt coins, and come up with a better shorter time.

I would probably change the fees so that even smaller amounts can be sent without large fees. If bitcoin gets more expensive, you could have to pay several dollars to send one dollar of bitcoin.

Bitcoin atms being easier to use, I don't want to slip in an id to purchase bitcoin.

Just because someone is a part of a signature campaign doesn't mean that they are only posting to promote said signature!

Personally, I am more turned off by people who put their Bitcoin and Litecoin addresses in their signature hoping for a handout 

That's an easy one: transaction time, transaction time and transaction time.

Imagine if everything was the same except  your transactions confirmed instantly (or almost instantly). The transaction times are really the only problem I see with Bitcoin in it's current form.

I guess blockchain size as well, but that's not the main thing as most people are using online or light clients anyway.

Sorry you werent clear enough. Would you like to ADD, IMPROVE or REMOVE this feature? 

Shitty gambling adverts from people's signatures. You do nothing to promote a positive all inclusive image of Bitcoin by pandering and trying to profit from others vices/addictions.

What about it and why??

We could just address btc in terms of µbtc or millibtc

The blockchain

Are there any decentralized and more importantly trustless solutions for off-chain transactions? If Bitcoin only works if you allow a third party to keep track of who owns it by storing balances in a database, then what is the point?

I'm not against off-chain transactions, in fact I think we need those solutions to be available, but they shouldn't be the only option that works. Bitcoin on-chain transactions need to be available and need to have reasonable fees. Keep in mind if we allow fees to get out of hand it will slow merchant adoption.

I would fight to keep it at 1MB for the years to come. We need off-chain solutions for that and there are many in the works. Raising the block size would only slow down progress and harm those projects.



1minute is just as bad as 10minutes when in a supermarket, especially as this 1minute block time sometimes will also take 20minutes. We need other solutions to that and there are off-chain solutions.

But to answer the OP question:
What? I would add proof of stake.
Why? It's cheaper and better aligned with keeping the fees low and the network secure. With proof of stake there is no reason at all to have fees beyond keeping the blocks free of spam. Those holding bitcoins would have a huge incentive to keep the blockchain rolling even without block rewards and transaction fees. The claim that with proof of stake the rich become richer is based on the assumption that mining is a for profit venture but with mining (securing the transactions) being built back into every full client cause we can, we wouldn't have to worry about the 50%-pools and wouldn't be blamed for wasting energy on mining. Also those mining chip companies could focus on more meaningful stuff.
We could continue to give the block reward to proof of stake blocks and reserve the mining fees to proof of stake, aligned with the block reward halfing. At the next block reward halfing we don't half the block reward but we half the POW blocks, doubling the POW difficulty and adding POS.

I would like to see shorter confirmation time along with larger block capacity, without larger size. I haven't heard of a way to do the latter but I think if one was discovered it would be a major improvement.

As much as I'd like to see faster confirmations, the reality is that Bitcoin is primarily an internet currency and double spending isn't much of a risk for small value transactions such as a cup of coffee, but it would still be nice and help to address some complaints.

We are starting to run out of space in blocks though, especially since pools sometimes use lower than the recommended limit. Ideally, we'd find a way to store more transactions without increasing the block size.