Topic: What if YOU could put 1 feature, change, whatever, into the Bitcoin protocol? - page 2. (Read 3162 times)

I would like to find a way to remove anonymity. It attracts scammers and ponzi pumpers and brings nothing to honest people. If are not a criminal, what do you hide from?

As I said, we do not live in a perfect world, so my idea might be a bit far fetched... ASIC-resistance is just one of the solutions... but more complex features could be introduced or developed to prevent farm dominance in the mining sector.

I think it might be a bit more expensive for companies to buy huge amounts of powerfull CPU's/GPU's and if you combine the reduced yield from CPU/GPU mining, it might not be economical to do it on such a large scale.

We have many talented dev's to sort that part out. 

I don't know at first the pre set number of coins didn't bother me. But now I wonder what would happen if it slowly expanded after the 21 million. I just worry about lost coins. It's funny I didn't at first but now I think of it. Who knows though.

Hasn't Spreadcoin implemented that?!

I would not change much with bitcoin. I feel that it is pretty well done concept in general and do not need that much tweaking. I am not a hardcore techie as well, so maybe people who wasts bigger blockchain fork or some other technical change that will laugh at me. But all I want to change is instant confirmation times. That is all.

True, but peer discovery could be more efficient with an official seednode client rather than IRC

Yea sadly I only run my bitcoin core when I need to, I can't do the 24 hours always on thing. Those that do should get a reward or have an incentive like no transaction fees or something.

An incentive for full nodes, perhaps.

Which have no interaction with the Bitcoin protocol at all.

How about a GUI for multisigs in the core wallet?
Right now you have to create them in the console and spend via rawtransactions, unless you want to use some 3rd party.

we also have SPDY 3.1 and HTTP 2.0 but who's counting.

Inflation will be borderline nominal in 10-15 years though. Economics is a considerably more sluggish arena than technology. So far Satoshi made some eerily prescient decisions. One of them is probably realising how long it would take for a new economic concept to take root. You need to maintain that incentive to support its creation for quite some time. The move to pure tx fees for miners will have to be very gradual too.

We have a new internet protocol. It's called IPv6. It was officially released in 2012, and as of April 2015, it's used by roughly 5% of connected devices, according to Google.

But, if you connect via IPv6, do you notice? Well, no. These technologies operate on “layers”, and the IP layer is below the Bitcoin layer. Even if we were on IPv8, it wouldn't affect Bitcoin's protocol a bit.

I would change than bitcoin would be mined slightly faster. I doubt that delaying the time of mining final bitcoin to year 2140 will be good in the long run. Time is of the essence here and our technology is changing so rapidly that in next 20 years we could have totally new leading cryptocurrency because someone will invite new internet protocol or something...

I have a little list....  

Pool mining resistance.  I want cryptographic proof that nobody can efficiently find hashes unless they have the key that can be used to spend the coinbase; this would insure that whoever finds the nonce has the power to spend the coinbase tx.  Pools would no longer be able to rely on cryptographic security to get their block payouts.  The easiest way to do it would be to add a required signature by the private key on the block header including nonce, and hash on the whole block header including the signature.  So without the key it would be impossible to evaluate the hash and see whether it falls below a target.

Fix the nonstandard implementation of Merkle trees.  The one we're using now could, in some very contrived circumstances, hash two non-identical blocks, with one containing duplicates of some transactions giving them the same Merkle root.  Nobody's figured out any way to make an attack using this property, but it's still a stupid property for a crypto primitive to have. Given the possibility of new combinations of bugs to combine it with in the future, eventually somebody might.

Change from secp256k1 to curve25519.  Secp256k1 is not subject to any attacks - yet - but has properties that suggest possibly poor resistance to some types of analysis.  Curve25519 is better studied and so far has shown no signs that a weakness might exist.

Fix the bug that makes all m-of-n signatures consume an extra value off the stack when evaluating scripts.

Bigger nonce space in the block header.  This business with 'extranonce' in the first transaction is stupid.  

The wire protocol should consistently use network byte ordering.  

That could actually be one of the best ways to store a Bitcoin wallet safely. No one will be able to read that disk these days Then again, these disks are rather soft and I wouldn't trust magnetic media with a Bitcoin wallet.

I would ask for a change in block rewarding system - to make the block rewards difficulty dependent.

The big farms only dump coins to the market anyway, let's discourage their future growth.

I would like that 10% of all mined coins would be transferred to a wallet of my choice.




More seriously:

make double spends with 0 confirmation harder to detect with default software's, so accept 0 confirmation transactions would be more secure even for people with less knowledge.  

ok, but gpu aren't that efficient like asic(and are more bulky, produce more heat ecc...), they cannot reach the same hash, thus the diff won't rise so fast like now, this mean more chance for small miners to compete, this is the real difference

also they are produced by company(amd and nvidia) that aren't interested in mining, which rsult in a low production cycle, again another reason why the hash will stay low for a greater amount of time


the point is the diff won't rise at the same speed as having a new asic every 3 months(just an example)

Just imagine this scenario:

You have a bakery. You make cakes and pastries and stuff, and sell it in your town. Now try to compete with Hostess, or Bimbo. Obviously, no matter what kind of equipment you buy, you will never be able to even slightly affect their business. Even if there were laws that prevented them to use industrial ovens and had to use home appliances, they still have the capacity of buy thousands of them and hire enough people to still be operating way ahead of you.

There's no such thing as designing a system where minorities get an advantage, because whatever minorities can do, companies can do it ×1000.