I don't think to add 1 thing and to remove 1 thing you only have to be a developer, there are other requirements too. But for the sake of the question, I will say, I will add dapps to it, but that's already been happening, and if I am to remove one thing that would be runes, ordinals, and BRC-20 tokens. Haha I know the additional and removal don't seem to compatible with each other as dapps would also bring the same issue as these runes and ordinals will brought and that would be increment in the fee.

All I want is, no increase in the btc transaction fee, to minimize that, we need scalability in BTC blockchain, and to increase the scalability many mechanisms are already in place, like taproot, segwit, lightning network etc. But I think we need more, I don't have the term in mind, as I am pretending to be a developer so I can't have the knowledge of developer while pretending, haha.

I would like to add just a Bitcoin bank if I had the chance, because I have been thinking lately that, the problem why Bitcoin is hardly being accepted in many countries is due to the fact that it hasn't yet had a structural building like branches in different regions of the world. Also I'm addition, it should have a physical currency that is spendable.

I would like to remove the hype and effect of whale movements, because this does a lot to affect prices and demand for BTC .

Nice suggestion, i wouldn’t have thought of anything better than this if I was a developer and have something to come up with to add to the invention of bitcoin. The high transaction fees is gradually affecting a lot of people, especially small holders into delaying their transactions and receiving their coins in a later time due to this high transaction fees they can’t tolerate. Only whales investors in bitcoin don’t feel too bothered too much about this transaction fees because of how seamless it is to them when they want to make a transaction on the blockchain with out minding the price at that time.


Nice suggestion too, for now I can’t think of any demerit to your opinion but how possible can it be because if you check how bitcoin was designed and how these wallets address are been generated, we can’t have more users getting their account created with almost different wallets at the same time.

I'd remove the Taproot upgrade loophole that allowed ordinals stuff to happen, thereby keeping NFT stuff from taking away space from monetary transactions. That's the only "bad" thing I can think of that's happening with Bitcoin.

One thing I would add or change would be probably just double the block size. Nothing crazy cuz obviously you don't scale at the base layer. The block size is just the arbitrary amount Satoshi chose a long time ago so it isn't necessarily the best size. A 2x would allow on-chain fees to stay cheaper for longer into the future and more importantly let people more quickly onboard to LN in the future when bitcoin starts being used for daily payments and that would be the main reason for a slightly larger block size, to allow more use of L2, all while keeping storage needed for nodes low and keeping the network decentralized. I feel like 4x or larger would harm decentralization but 2x is a big enough change to allow a lot more L2 onboarding, while being small enough to not effect individuals' ability to easily and cheaply run nodes.




The only other Bitcoin issue I can think of is the possibility for the 2 million or so bitcoin held in pay-to-public-key transactions from like 2009/2010/2011 era to be hacked once quantum computing becomes mature in the decades to come. I'm not 100% on that but from what I've read quantum computing will eventually allow that to happen. So if that's true, I'd skip the small blocksize increase and instead I'd hard fork to invalidate any unspent output sitting in that format, giving old holders plenty of time (years) in advance to move their bitcoin to later formats that are secure against QC. Thus eliminating the potential huge QC problem of a couple million bitcoin getting hacked and dumped on the market in the future. If my reading is wrong and that won't actually be a problem, then yeah just the 2x block size increase.

SCALABILITY!

We arent that blind nor not knowing about this main issue or problem of Bitcoin on which talks about scalability on which this could cause up that network congestion which in resulting into those peak
Network fee on which it do really sucks if it happens.

Here's some precise words in regarding to this:
The Bitcoin scalability problem refers to the limited capability of the Bitcoin network to handle large amounts of transaction data on its platform in a short span of time.[1] It is related to the fact that records (known as blocks) in the Bitcoin blockchain are limited in size and frequency
Source

If this one would really be resolved out then Bitcoin would really be already perfect when it comes to payment option because there's no way for fees
to soar up. 

The bitcoin features are well designed. I don’t see anything that we need to add because since the existence of bitcoin, everything has been going smoothly. If to say the currency is facing some challenges, we would’ve said the developers should add some new features so that we can get rid of them, but since everything is going normal, I don’t think there is anything to reduce in the features of bitcoin.

And if I should add, the only thing I will do is find a way that will stop the mempool from congesting regardless of the transaction because that thing is getting worse sometimes and you don’t really like it. I even get upset sometimes if I try to run a transaction for too long or for too many days. Especially when I’m in need of money.

I'm thinking of increasing the block size.

Increasing the block size means larger size per block, and that would potentially decrease the transaction fees, and the confirmation time would be faster. On the other hand, that would mean Bitcoin will be more centralized than it is today because only the large miners will be the one to handle those large blocks, and smaller ones will not.

TBH, it's very easy for us that are not developers to say what features we want to add in Bitcoin but in reality, adding one means compromising one as well like on what I said where increasing the block size means decreasing transaction fees, but it would be more centralized now. I guess this is the reason why developers are kind of thinking twice or thrice, sometimes hesitant to add additional features on to Bitcoin.

     From what I've seen, the only thing that Bitcoin holders don't like the most is that when the ordinals and runes do something, their fees increase too much. And it's really a headache,
so if I'm one of the developers, I'll keep it low as long as the fee is only moderate and not very low. 

     Because in this way, the number of others who don't know about bitcoin but who will see its potential will for sure increase its adoption. In this way a lot of bitcoin holders will be more happyif they will see the fee is maintain its low every time there is a transaction.

Many people complain about bitcoin's high transaction fees and slow processing speed, and sometimes I get annoyed by that too. But nothing is perfect without drawbacks and bitcoin is no exception, so I am satisfied with what bitcoin has and do not want to add or subtract anything. What I want is for no one to be able to modify or change anything because if someone can do it once then they can modify it many times and eventually bitcoin will no longer be what it is. I hope bitcoin will stay as it is and no one can change it.