Topic: So..What's Next For Bitcoin? (Read 341 times)

I think I'm going to agree with this. I've said it on another thread too; you can't make everyone agree upon such upgrade even if it's better for the sake of your privacy. Bitcoin was designed to be transparent and I'd continue running a node that supports transparency. If you don't like the way Bitcoin works, there are plenty of other altcoins built with a different purpose.

How would that increase the block size?

The role of exchanges is to allow their users exchange. If a Bitcoin upgrade would mean delisting from some exchanges, then the minority of the exchanges left would find their chance to appear.

I believe the support for Bitcoin privacy features by some users haven’t truly considered the consequences.

If there is a flaw in the privacy implementation, then some entities would have the advantage to exploit the flaw over the users who don’t know how to exploit the flaw.

Bitcoin might also be “more feared”, and it might not enjoy the government’s tolerance for it anymore once privacy features are implemented.

It will increase the size of the blocks, and centralize the network.

Auditability of the ledger through transparency, to assure everything is balanced, is good.

But Bitcoin is not going to activate such changes in a hard fork way. Any such exchange will just reject MimbleWimble addresses in the same way as some exchanges don't accept Segwit addresses. The same with mining pools, there are some of them mining only non-Segwit transactions or censoring Bitcoin transactions. Also, many exchanges freeze funds above some limit anyway, forcing you to do KYC/AML stuff, for that reason we should focus more on decentralized exchanges or maybe even having some LN-based exchange attached to each LN node by default (or maybe some L3 node).

Monero has privacy enabled by default and forced on all users, which is good for privacy and bad for exchange listing. But Bitcoin is going to activate new features by creating new address types, that of course makes privacy worse, but nobody can be forced to use new features. You cannot force anyone to use Segwit, the same will be with MimbleWimble, if implemented. Of course, as with Segwit, there will be incentives to use such addresses, because joining transactions make it possible to decrease transaction size, so it is cheaper.

If trading by LN will work, then why not. LN swaps between LN-BTC and LN-LTC are technically possible right now, for other networks it is also technically possible to activate it, as long as some features like multisig or locktime works. I don't think Bitcoin should rely on centralized exchanges if better options will be available. Exchange centralization is one of the things that should be addressed in the future, as well as mining centralization.

nothing in history of cryptocurrencies have received more bad press than bitcoin, most people don't even know what XMR is. so no i don't think the FUD about bitcoin can get any worse than this.
but if we can add more privacy features to bitcoin as the adoption already growing it will be helpful to increase that adoption. but if bitcoin didn't have its adoption like XMR then adding more FUD could prevent its further growth.

You dont think XMR's issues stem from the negative press? Do you think Bitcoin would get this bad press if they targeted anon features like Monero?

Personally, I want to see people under Business Development work with Lightning builders and exchanges, and start implementing the infrastructure required for mass use and adoption. Some things can be learned from Jack Mallers’ “experiment” with El Salvador.

We won't think what exchanges may try to do. We surely won't leave our chance to improve Bitcoin's privacy just because we'll be afraid of exchanges' actions. The situation with Monero is different; it's not same like adopted as Bitcoin and it has much less market cap. And still, I consider this temporary.

Imagine an exchange delisting Bitcoin, which is the first mover and the one that mainly moves the market of the other cryptocurrencies.  

MimbleWimble, of course. If it will succeed in LTC, it will be also implemented in BTC, as it was with Segwit.

No chance for that, the only thing that can be done on-chain is compressing data more efficiently. And that is possible with Pedersen Commitments (range proof is another story and they are probably too heavy to be implemented).

There is no need for changing consensus from Proof of Work to something else. The only improvement I can see in this matter is mining decentralization, maybe with Stratum v2 or something else.

Yes, things like SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT are discussed, also full-RBF probably will be enabled.

BIP-118: SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT - anyprevout.xyz

and

BIP-300/301: Drivechain - drivechain.xyz

are two proposals i am interested in, but i am only scratching the surface

I was searching for the correct term and couldn't seem to find it. Thank you for finding it for me LOL

I figured implementation was analogous to activation.

I think you mean "activated" because Taproot was implemented a long time ago, was locked recently and will activate in a couple of months.

We got bigger blocks back in 2017 with SegWit softfork and with Taproot we are going to get some additional "efficiency" increase that contributes to increasing capacity (smaller tx size => more tx in a block).
And PoS is a joke of course.

You can subscribe to the mailing list and be informed of all the developments.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

lol，yes it's kidding .
Bigger Blocks，Faster block update speed.These are simply changing some parameters based on the original.

But changing the parameters may not be so easy. This needs the support of miners.

Bigger Blocks，Faster block update speed all have their own problems, such as DDOS attacks, easier to fork, etc.

I hate to be the guy that is already looking ahead, given that Taproot has not even been activated* yet.

Nonetheless, what is the next move for Bitcoin? Bigger Blocks? (Kidding) POS? (Kidding'er)

On a more serious note, I am curious as to what the focus will be for the next upgrade in a year or two. Will everything be more focused on L2? Security upgrades? Anonymity upgrades?

I have read many of the BIP's on GitHub, but I am unsure of what is likely to be accepted or not.

I'd rather ask you folks than the clowns on Reddit. What upgrades do you see coming next?