Quote from: OROBTC on February 05, 2016, 08:19:15 PM

1) Block size. Satoshi could have probably anticipated this, and he (or the team) should have written some code allowing an easy expansion through time... Whatever developers "win" the block size tangle, please think ahead guys!

Wrong. This is not a fix and makes no sense from a technical perspective. If anything it could kill Bitcoin (if there were no infrastructural improvements).

Quote from: OROBTC on February 05, 2016, 08:19:15 PM

2) Limited acceptance by merchants (the principal thing retarding BTC growth IMO). I do not know how to fix this one. Time and customer demand?

This is not a flaw in Bitcoin.

Quote from: OROBTC on February 05, 2016, 08:19:15 PM

3) It is HARD to buy Bitcoin, especially quietly.

Neither is this.

Quote from: simon66 on February 05, 2016, 08:24:40 PM

Mining pools and mega farms..

I think the code should have something to disincentivise the centralization of mining. I don't think rules that disallow it would be the answer. More like built in conditions that the free market will turn into decentralization rather than encourage centralization as it is.

This makes sense. Centralization is indeed a problem, albeit nobody has a real solution for this. Incentives to run nodes would be also nice in order to relive the costs and promote decentralization.

Quote from: salinizm on February 05, 2016, 11:28:08 PM

i would change block size no matter what the situations would be..

Read the first part of my post.

Quote from: ignitiondefect on February 05, 2016, 11:23:15 PM

So why doesn't someone just create a new Bitcoin and just fix those things?

Because they can't. Let me try to explain this somehow; people that don't have the sufficient knowledge and technical skills think that building a spaceship (where spaceship = solutions to all inherent problems that Bitcoin has) is as 'easy' as stacking a few blocks on-top of each other.