We've compiled some of the most interesting proposed changes to Bitcoin from cryptocurrency developers.
Besides price movements, another issue on the Bitcoin agenda is attracting attention. Among the update proposals prepared by developers are changes ranging from restricting the use of old addresses to vaults that can intervene in suspicious withdrawals.
One of the proposals even suggests using the smallest unit, currently called “satoshi,” directly as “bitcoin.”
The BIP documents, known as Bitcoin Improvement Proposals, outline the technical details of these ideas. However, a proposal receiving a BIP number does not automatically mean it will be added to Bitcoin. Some documents are still in draft form, some have completed technical text, and others have been replaced by other proposals.
Here are six remarkable ideas that could change the daily experience and the way Bitcoin users store their assets.
Could Restrictions Be Imposed on Old Bitcoin Addresses?
One of the most striking proposals is BIP 361, co-authored by Jameson Lopp. The draft presents a phased transition plan in case sufficiently powerful quantum computers could break the current signature methods used in Bitcoin.
The first phase of the proposal aims to block new BTC transfers to address types vulnerable to quantum attacks approximately three years after activation. Two years later, it envisages imposing additional conditions on spending made with existing ECDSA and Schnorr signatures.
The goal here is to prevent attackers from seizing BTC in old addresses. Quantum-resistant recovery methods are being considered to ensure the rightful owners can access their funds.
However, this approach also raises the question of what will happen to assets that do not transition or have been inactive for a long time. BIP 361 is still in draft form and also requires the development of a post-quantum signature standard. The timelines mentioned in the document will begin if the proposal is activated.
In the same area, BIP 360 proposes a new output type called “Pay-to-Merkle-Root.” By eliminating the direct key-based spending path in the taproot, it aims to reduce the quantum risk stemming from public keys remaining visible for extended periods. This draft, however, does not offer a standalone solution to quantum attacks that can occur during the short time a transaction awaits confirmation.
It May Be Possible to Recover Bitcoins Even If a Hacker Gains Access to the Wallet
One of the most interesting ideas for Bitcoin users is the “vault” systems that add waiting times to withdrawals.
One example of this approach was BIP 345, which stipulated a predetermined time period before BTC could be sent to any address. During this time, if a user noticed a suspicious withdrawal, they could transfer the assets to a predefined recovery path.
The document provides an example of a one-day waiting period. In such a system, an attacker who obtains the daily key would not be able to immediately transfer the BTC to their own address; it would create an opportunity to intervene with a separate recovery key for the user.
BIP 345 is now marked as “closed,” and BIP 443 is shown as the suggested alternative.
BIP 443, developed by Salvatore Ingala, offers a more general framework for determining the conditions under which BTC can be spent in subsequent transactions. This proposal, which could be used in vault systems, shared fund management, and various scaling designs, is still in draft form.
Sharing Only One Address and Not Revealing All Payments
BIP 352 defines a payment method called “Silent Payments”.
In Bitcoin, the repeated use of the same address makes it easier to see payments sent to that address together. Silent Payments, on the other hand, ensures that even though the user shares only one piece of payment information, a different destination address is created on the blockchain for each payment.
Thus, for example, someone who publishes a donation address on a website will be able to receive payments without having to provide a separate address for each sender. Someone looking from the outside will also not be able to directly link these payments together simply by using the shared payment information.
In return, the recipient’s wallet needs to scan the blockchain to find the payments it received. This requirement poses a technical challenge, especially for lightweight wallets.
The technical text for BIP 352 is “completed”. Unlike some other proposals, Silent Payments is not an update that changes Bitcoin’s consensus rules; its use depends on wallet support.
“Bitcoin” Suggested Instead of “Satoshi”
BIP 177, developed by John Carvalho, focuses less on technical changes and more on how users view their balances.
The proposal calls for the smallest unit of measurement, currently known as a satoshi, to be called “one bitcoin.” The goal is to display whole numbers in wallets instead of long decimal numbers.
For example, an amount expressed as 0.00010000 BTC today could be represented as “10,000 bitcoin” under the new naming convention.
This change will not affect Bitcoin production, the value users hold, or supply rules. Moreover, according to the definition in the document, the BTC code will retain its current meaning: 1 BTC will still represent 100 million base units.
The draft could create a significant change in conventional usage, as it proposes a system where the word “bitcoin” and the BTC code can represent different denominations. For now, this is a naming convention suggested for adoption by wallets and applications.
An Old Bitcoin Feature May Return
BIP 347 aims to reintroduce the OP_CAT instruction, which was present in Bitcoin’s early days but was deactivated in 2010.
The basic function of OP_CAT is to combine two pieces of data. This seemingly simple process could pave the way for developers to implement more complex spending conditions and verification mechanisms on Bitcoin.
The proposal lists use cases such as safe deposit boxes, advanced contracts, payment channels, and simplification of certain processes in the BitVM2 design.
The new design limits the size of the combined data to 520 bytes, thus imposing a specific technical restriction on the use of the command.
Although BIP 347 is marked as “completed,” this indicates that the technical document is finalized. Enabling the command in Bitcoin, however, requires a separate soft fork.
This Could Open the Way to Use Different Networks with BTC
BIP 300, developed by Paul Sztorc and CryptAxe, handles money transfers between Bitcoin and sidechains with a different security model.
The “Drivechain” approach aims to allow users to move their BTC to sidechains with different features, and then back to the main Bitcoin network.
The most notable aspect of the proposal is that conversions from sidechains to Bitcoin would be managed by a proof-of-work mechanism based on miners, rather than a fixed company or signatory group.
This structure allows for testing different transaction and application designs outside the main network. However, the critical point for the user is the role miners will play in withdrawing the BTC sent to the sidechain and the associated security assumptions.
BIP 300 is still in the draft stage. Therefore, the model described here is not a feature that will be implemented for all Bitcoin users; it is one of the proposals regarding the areas in which Bitcoin can be expanded.
*This is not investment advice.
