Bitcoin Forum

Why is transaction history kept on blockchains instead of current balances? If we publish transactions in blocks and delete the previous block after each block is processed and each user be a validator, can't the system proceed safely?

There are too many forks in this system, but what if we approve the fork that is most accepted every time?

After each block is processed, we can ensure that each node can contact different people and approve the block.

We can confirm the block creation when a certain number of transactions is reached, so that each node cannot put a different number of transactions into the block according to the bandwidth.

No we can't have a cryptocurrency without blockchain mostly because of the addresses' balances. If block 1 contains a transaction that Bob sends to Alice 1BTC and Alice wants to hold that bitcoin for a year she can't based on your topic. She'll have to spend it before the block that contains her transaction gets deleted. If she loses the block, she can't prove she own it.

I announce that I have mined 50BTC back on 2009 on block #1000. How can you confirm that I mined them if you can't look the coinbase transaction of that block? I don't get how you're imagining a cryptocurrency without a ledger.

There is something more important than the use of a fork. The demand. Bitcoin was the first one, all the others were not. Even if litecoin is faster than bitcoin, the majority doesn't recognize it that much. Who's the second person who stepped on the moon? Do y'all know him?

Yeah , a masternode, and from what he is trying to say we will cram the entire history of the blockchain in one new block every time, highly inefficient, each so-called block that will have to propagate through the network will have to carry all the balances for every address and what happens when there are not 20 million but 20 billions of them?
Besides, no more mining but the network will be controlled and policed by the people with the most coins, PoS cartel style.

Also funny, the title is "cryptocurrency without blockchain" but you used the word block more than a dozen times  ;D

By removing Decentralization and Trustlessness, you may definitely achieve your mission. Just not sure, how useful will that be!

I don't know what metric reptilian system you're using but no, it's not like that.
From the first thing is wrong, 10 million x 256 doesn't make 256 million.


That's the definition of PoS.


Better stick to fiat then altogether.

OP is talking about Avalanche protocol, a very interesting idea which was introduced by a "random" person/team, something similar to how Bitcoin started, the protocol "looks" like it's all sunshine and rainbow but this isn't the case at all, its largest obstacle is Sybil attack, which means it has to "validate" or "whitelist" all nodes that want to participate, now in order to do that, you will need to use some POS or POW features to ensure that no Sybil attacks are easily performed.

BCH implemented Avalanche protocol as a pre consensus protocol which runs alongside POW (that's why you can't double spend on BCH anymore), but this is way too early to judge if that will succeed, it could as a side-chain solution, but most certainly it can't replace POW and blockchain.