Bitcoin Forum

What is the "interblocknet" and why does it matter?

The revolution that Bitcoin has started with money will continue with services but as we know Bitcoin will never scale to handle all of the world's transactions so how will this be managed?

IMO we are going to end up with many blockchains (most likely one blockchain per major service or even company) that allow for specific service payments which will remove the "middle-men" (i.e. websites currently who are instead replaced with "miners").

Consider something like Uber - do drivers really need to pay a % fee to a company in order to offer a service?

If there was instead a "blockchain service" whose tokens were perhaps "kms of travel" then you can do away with the centralised website and the commissions (only requiring a mining fee to keep that blockchain going).

It is possible that these will be "side-chains" although I think it might be wise to have more than one "core blockchain" (in case of systematic failure).

blockchains per company will piss people off having to convert each time they use a different store or service..

maybe sidechains, where each side chain represents a continent, or a country.. and if user adoption gets too high in that main area, creating a bottle neck. then new sub-side chains are created to represent a smaller population base of that area ( states, provinces, counties)

that way people are not
1. worried the chain becomes useless if a company goes into bankruptcy, taking their miners offline
2. swapping between currencies every time they want to shop locally.
3. worried funds wont disappear as its based on geographic location rather than company.

also if one company was using a chain.. it would just be a ledger, and no real point in the decentralized blocks.. (unless its a international company or something with 1000 different stores). but even so swapping applecoin for bitcoin then into walmart coin.. or even applecoin after buying an ipad to then change directly into walmart coin to then spend walmart coin.. is a few too many transactions in the middle, that people wont like.

they would prefer however UKcoin  to buy things in the uk and only swap if they are going on holiday abroad

(i expect you to knit pick and whinge like a school girl.. so have a cup of coffee first and think about it for a while)

@franky1 - can you please stop with the stupid schoolyard insults (you've been doing that to me all over the place and basically it just makes you look like a stupid kid).

If you hadn't noticed I didn't bother self-moderating this topic (so there was no need to delete your previous post).

Now to actually get to the "meat and bones" in China they have "smart cards" that are used for shopping malls (mostly often for just one chain of shops or for most of the shops at one shopping mall).

Those are extremely popular in China (in fact they are actually used as an underground "currency" but we don't need to go into that).

So the model that I am working on is actually based upon a "real system" that is handling hundreds of millions of RMB per day (i.e. not something that I just made up for this topic).

we can't have many proof of work blockchains, under the assumption that mining hardware can be sufficiently programmable or replaceable.

Why? Simple, the miners from the strongest blockchain (where mining consumes the most Joules of energy), can change/reprogram the mining chips and "hop" to the weaker chain and cause havoc, double-spends, then hop back.

Many proof of work block chains only works in the universe where there are different possible proof of work functions and the hardware is tough to engineer.

In this case there would be 1 chain per mining algorithm. This is why Lite and Doge is in my opinion an anomaly. The Lite miners can jump to doge and cause havoc any time.
From a different point of view Doge was meant to be a joke so the Doge people know about it and it was their goal to create a shitty "fun" coin from the start.

Of course things like X11 are pure pile of shit because The chain is only as strong as the weakest link, so if one of the algorithm is prone to collision then the whole function is not strong at all. Furthermore assembling hash functions in this manner may be weak because of the interaction between two or more successive functions. Putting on a tinfoil hat, if we are unlucky these successive functions could cancel each other collsion resistance in an unknown manner, that the creator couldn't predict.

Looking from a different point of view, it's good that we have so many shit coins. This is consistent with the bad money drives out good money theory. People hoard the strong coin and circulate the shit coins because

Altcoins follow the Worse is Better programming philosophy. After the PUMP phase their value drops forever so people are forced to spend them, similiar to Quantitative Easing or negative interest rates. This generates real economic activity on the internet.

yep possible could work for a "mall shopping centre" blockchain currency.. i admit that could be a possibility. covering multiple stores. but i dont envision a 1 currency per business as that gets too complicated for customers.

maybe the first step into you achieving it is to promote it first as a loyalty card system for a mall.. and then expand it to allow customers to buy/sell coins, to expand it into a a currency once the retailers are comfortable and trained in using it

Whilst I agree that most altcoins are rubbish I disagree that we can only have one "proof" system.

Anyone who is an engineer likes to have "failsafe" backup mechanisms so anyone that says we "don't need one" would be view as "suspicious" in my mind.

Potential promo material:
https://i.imgflip.com/yaxmq.jpg   https://i.imgur.com/PSuiCje.jpg

I am no salesperson (just a developer) so that side of things will be up to others.

easy enough to close off the mining so only retailers can mine/authorise. so that outsiders cant jump in. EG customers only have lite wallets with no miner code to reveal how the mining/authorisation works. then there would not be any hashpower race. and just basic security distributed across the many retailers of the mall

Yes @franky1 - you have got something spot on. :)

Yes that would be possible. But again I'm not a physicist so I can't really argument the many proof of work chain stuff.

Well failsafe could be good, but then Bitcoin and Bitcoin Backup would be almost 1:1 copies so if there's some fundamental flaw, both would suffer from it.

The way I see it we have Bitcoin, the strongest kid on the block, and the rest are fads.

Attacks on altcoins would be whack-a-mole, fight on Bitcoin would be a real fight with real troops trying to shut down mining farms around the world. It's basically the same kind of fight for cheap natural resources that we had for millennia.

But you are only assuming POW (there are other possible solutions although I am not advocating POS if that is what you are concerned about).

Also even with POW there are different ways it can be applied (which is what CIYAM is working on).

Personally I think Bitcoin will be "digital gold" (and I hope it will be that forever) but I think other blockchains are going to appear.

Fail-safe != 1 fail-safe.
You can spawn a single young, like dumb cow, and waste time to nurture & protect it.
Or you can be like the glorious toad, and lay thousands of eggs in gorgeous gelatinous strings in the water, later to hatch out into expandable tadpole minions!

"Quantity has a quality all of its own." --J.S.

i think the best way to ensure bitcoins reserve currency status is the sidechain method, where it starts with 6 main sidechains to represent the main world continents

Maybe this will be a good approach but I still do not like the idea that only "one blockchain" will be the foundation for all others.

If a serious bug is found in Bitcoin then it will wipe out every side-chain along with the main blockchain almost instantly - that is not what an engineer would want to have in place (we didn't fly to the moon with this approach).

ok maybe not direct sidechains (eg not like a merge mine idea) but there would need to be some decentralised method for swapping in and out, that way your bitcoin gold still reigns supreme as a reserve currency which others are backed by (even if only in theory rather than linked chains)

That is was ACCT does (Atomic Cross-Chain Transfers) - and CIYAM has implemented this for Bitcoin and Litecoin and also two alts.

I see it differently... Nothing stops any nation or country from starting their own Blockchains. The reasons most of these countries are hesitant to join in on the

Bitcoin Blockchain = TRUST. They believe in the technology, but they do not TRUST the developers and the miners and the unknown origin of Bitcoin. The

only solution they see, is for them, is to start their own Blockchain technology. {Private ledgers / Alt Coins etc.} The way we address this trust issue at the

moment is not conducive to a single Blockchain. {All the fighting over block sizes}  

And IMO we don't need a single blockchain - as the title of this topic suggests we can have an "interblocknet" with as many blockchains as we like (with Bitcoin still being considered as the "gold standard" of course).

...and the fact that nations wish to control and issue their own currencies. So that the fate of their economy is not directly linked to the fate of, for instance, Somali economy. Just like they wish to maintain their boarders and have own standing armies.
Because countries are like that.

As of TODAY, POW is the absolute king. No other method to deal with validation of transactions can be as secure and as solid as a POW with a strong amount of hashing power behind to back it up. Therefore, the more people in the same blockchain, the more resistant this blockchain, and the more valuable the token since it's backed by a lot of people running nodes and machines to process transactions.

Spreading this hashing power around would make Bitcoin less secure, therefore less valuable. The ideal scenario is 1 core blockchain, with conservative block size so people can run nodes on their bedroom, and an insanely amount of hashing power to back this core blockchain, then layers on top (LN, sidechains). Everything else is a waste of time AND resources. This is why I have massive doubts of any alt being relevant long term.

Your point is noted - and I am not a fan of alt coins in general (and CIYAM is not even a "coin" at all) but I do think that you need to "spread the risk" over more than one network in case of systematic failure.

Can be a very good solution, and I not consider a problem to have to convert between blockchains. It could be programmed to be transparent or automatic exchanges. Just as you convert from one altcoin to another now.

THis vision excites me a lot. I don't think one blockchain per major service, but perhaps one per major type of service (e.g. one for e-commerce that would work for Amazon, ebay, wal-mart, etc etc).

This is the future, for sure. I'm so happy to be one of the people grasping it first hand!

I think I agree with you a bit in spreading risk a bit in terms of a failure of the main blockchain, but it's a very complicated thing, as noted by other poster, spreading hashing power means the tradeoff of the coin losing security, over the assumption that this loss of security is a positive tradeoff in case the blockchain fails (so you would have another one).

We would have to look at the realistic scenarios of the blockchain actually failing. If one fails, the other would fail too, unless it was different, for example one blockchain using SHA256 and the other using another algo... (so the blockchain failure would need to be algo-failure related because I can't think of any other scenario where a fatal failure would happen, and even thinking that the algo has some kind of backdoor as noted in other threads is very sci-fi to me) but right now I cant picture how this would be viable.

I don't think that it is a bad idea. The comapny could offer to convert it into bitcoins or fiat. A good use of this is about non-monetary advantages (I don't if this is the best way to it), like fidelity cards. One would receive points, in fact coins from the huge premined, or maybe totally premined crypto-currency of the shop, on his fidelity card.

Indeed IMO each major blockchain would use a different algorithm (whether we are just stalking a different POW or something entirely different).

To a fair extent I think that Litecoin has actually paved the way forward pretty well (as it has kept up with all the recent improvements added to Bitcoin and even has ASIC mining now so is backed by a lot of computing power).