What (if anything) would you change about bitcoin code if you could? \ stacker news ~AskSN

pull down to refresh

What (if anything) would you change about bitcoin code if you could?

385 sats \ 12 comments \ @Aardvark 24 Jan AskSN

Personally, the most coding I've ever done is that I made a program that said "Hjello Wkrld@" I probably messed up.

Anyhow, I know we have a lot of people that are pretty knowledgeable and have first hand experience with developing in the bitcoin space. What would you like to change?

view all related items

221 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 24 Jan

I wouldn't know, honestly. Maybe something that recycles dust into the coinbase?

26 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 24 Jan

sats the standard

...ooops, already there!!

64 sats \ 6 replies \ @ek 24 Jan

I would make blocks even smaller

10 sats \ 4 replies \ @Aardvark OP 24 Jan

Any particular reason?

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 24 Jan

It would make it clearer why we need lightning since it’s apparently not obvious enough for some yet

47 sats \ 1 reply \ @fiatbad 24 Jan

It would make it clearer why we need lightning since it’s apparently not obvious enough for some yet

Lightning is partially limited by block-size as well. Kinda defeats the purpose if opening/closing channels costs thousands of Sats and takes months to be confirmed.

With the current block size, if everyone in the world wanted to open and close ONLY A SINGLE Lightning channel per YEAR, it would not be possible.

I'm not arguing for larger blocks. I'm just pointing out that Lightning is already having a tough time in the public eye. Hardly anyone is using it non-custodially as it is.... and you want to make it even more difficult to use?!

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 24 Jan

Kinda defeats the purpose if opening/closing channels costs thousands of Sats and takes months to be confirmed.

Why would more expensive onchain transactions defeat the purpose of lightning?

With the current block size, if everyone in the world wanted to open and close ONLY A SINGLE Lightning channel per YEAR, it would not be possible.

Yes

Hardly anyone is using it non-custodially as it is.... and you want to make it even more difficult to use?!

You mean make it harder to use it non-custodially? I don't think that the tx fees for channel open/close are the bottleneck for non-custodial usage. It's that you need to run a lightning node and manage channels. More expensive onchain transactions don't change that.

My point is that if bitcoin started with smaller blocks, lightning would maybe already be more developed. Maybe, I obviously don't really know.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Aardvark OP 24 Jan

Ahhh, ok that actually makes a lot of sense!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 25 Jan

interesting

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Jon_Hodl 24 Jan

I would integrate Whirlpool CoinJoin at the protocol level so that every spend was a CoinJoin

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @emmanuelrosa 24 Jan

I would leave it exactly as it is.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 25 Jan

good question but wrong community: SN users are full of bad ideas