pull down to refresh

What Future Changes Do You Want for Bitcoin (No Shitcoining obvs)?
202 sats \ 8 comments \ @nelom 6 Oct bitcoin
Hi Stackers, What upgrades or changes would you like to see that keep Bitcoin true to your definition of what it should be?
We're seeing the Core Knots debate unfold in real time, so you can mention that if you want but it's been doing the rounds for so long now that even nocoiners have heard the phrase OP_Return!
Are you happy as it is and stacking sats staying humble is the only way?
I've read a lot from a couple of stackers unhappy with the custodial nature or marketing of some lightning wallets, which purport to be self custody, where under the hood is a different story.
write
preview
related posts
142 sats \ 2 replies \ @falsefaucet 6 Oct
being here for taproot and seeing how that was pandered as 'foolproof' to an extent, and i understand alot of good came from taproot, esp regardling LN, but the unforeseen outcome that came with it wasnt great.
the whole core/citrea stuff just stinks, its hard to have an unbiased opinion when it SEEMS like a company or entity is pushing for changes that would benefit them, THEN providing why it COULD be good for the network.
as someone who came right at the blocksize wars, the situation of a company wanting to try and make changes just still doesnt sit well. yes i know consensus policy vs mempool policy but still relatively smell the same. bad.
bitcoin at its current state, cant really scale to the WORLD money, not without sacrificing some of the principals of the corn. so bitcoin WILL have to evolve to meet that goal.
im too much of a left bell curve guy to have an educated opinion, my stance why not leave default where it is now, but give the ones who want it, an option to increase what their node accepts. i think thats where block propagation problems start. idk
slow is smooth and smooth is fast.
took advantage of ATH in fiat terms to use bitrefill and finally get into FPV drones. ive wanted to for YEARS, but decided to hodl and stack until now.
what good is fuck you money, if you never say fuck you?
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @nelom OP 6 Oct
You do yourself a disservice, you're definitely on the right of the bell curve, great answer 👍
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @falsefaucet 6 Oct
reply
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @senf 7 Oct
I'd like covenants and quantum resistance.
reply
65 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 6 Oct
I'm pretty much an ossificationist so, I want no changes - only critical bug fixes.
The idea that things must be constantly changed, just because they can be, is an unfortunate trap that developers often fall into.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Oct
Chesterton's fence
reply
157 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 6 Oct
I want self-custody/privacy to get easier/better. I want these things as a customer but also as a provider.
It's relatively easy to argue for the right to self-custody and privacy, and for those of us being denied those rights, those properties being accessible is even more important.
As a provider, I'd also like better lightning provider<->wallet programmatic interoperability. It's early so there are lots of competing standards, but without one standard to rule them all, every provider needs to also provide wallet. Worse, without one standard to rule them all, people are cheering at the top of their lungs for well-marketed custodial/trustodial solutions.
reply
152 sats \ 0 replies \ @nelom OP 6 Oct
I know it's a bad thing to say but I think the majority of the future users of Bitcoin will have their sats custodied in a bank, because I see a lot of videos saying nations clamping down on exchanges, where I don't think they're clamping down, I think they're bringing the exchanges up to banking regulation level, and before you know it, the regular banks will be offering to take the hassle.
Obviously self custody and self sovereignty is the would like to have but we know how lazy people are 😢
reply