Bitcoin Forum

Hi fellows,

Everybody knows that the blockchain technology has solved a big issue, having its own drawbacks and failures, most of which have been being solved but many of which are essential handicaps of the technology behind cryptocurrencies. One of those handicaps is the blockchain size. Blockchain has to include each and every transactions made in the network so that each satoshi has a recorded history. This may be contrasted to paper money since banknotes are essentially history-agnostic.

My question is whether there is a developer working on a different trust-free transaction validation network proposal.

All existing wallets having a positive balance and their holdings may be stored, for example, instead of storing all transactions. Is something like that or something other than that doable?

It sounds like you haven't read the original bitcoin whitepaper (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)? See section 7.

I have indeed read §7. I am thinking of a technology other than chaining blocks. Actually, I am thinking of someone who thinks of it. Is there any one of the kind?

If you actually had read section 7, then you wouldn't have bothered wasting time saying something as silly as:

Well, let's fix it, then. Blockchain is based on the public distribution of the transaction history of each and every satoshi. That transaction history may be compressed by some methods, but this doesn't change the fact that each and every satoshi has a history stored in each and every working node.

I see you've still not read section 7.

gmaxwell,

Maybe you've not read it. Huh?

Well, forgive my arrogance. By "history" I don't mean all the transaction data. History of a bitcoin is stored in a compressed form, omitting the earliest transactions, in each node. But what is stored is still the history of each and every satoshi. Am I wrong? I mean, in the end, a blockchain cannot be history-blind.

My question was whether there is someone who is working on a history-blind trust-free transaction validation network.

Yes, you are wrong— if all you are doing is verifying new blocks and not initializing new peers there is no reason to store the historical data, you need only store the list of currently spendable coins (this owing to the fact that the bitcoin system tracks atomic coins, and not 'balances'.). This is what section 7 is about, and I thought it was rather clear— so you're going to have to ask some questions if there is to be any hope of someone figuring out where your misunderstanding is coming from.

Certainly you're not likely to get far by insulting the people who you'd hope to educate you about the matters you're asking about.

Another way:
https://ripple.com/wiki/Ledger_Format

It seems somebody finally understands the problem. Thanks, HostFat.

Large Fractal Clusters, that can cross reference, but also survive alone for localized use cases or different schemas :) Allowing you to See the Indexes but not need all the values, and then reference the values as needed, and in threads :)

Unfortunately ripple is a federated/centralized system that requires opencoin to select a consistent set of trusted signers and for those signers to behave honestly. You can get a lot of scaling advantages if you're willing to trust. :)

That said— what they're doing doesn't reduce the operating storage requirements for nodes relative to pruned (section 7) Bitcoin... which, fortunately, doesn't change the security assumptions. (it does change the initialization bandwidth, though that didn't appear to be what the thread was asking about)

The ledger format has nothing to do with the consensus process, it would be possible to add a nonce for PoW to Ripple headers and turn it into a PoW chain.

As Ripple operates on balances, they are sensitive to the total amount of accounts, not the total amount of unspent outputs. Both designs can be spammed/bloated (Ripple battles this by requiring reserves, Bitcoin by imposing hardcoded soft-limits in most nodes for dust outputs and by requiring relatively high fees).

Hi

Yes there are few alternatives to Blockchain Technology (they are quite similar and  probably people will still call it Blockchain)

The 2 Alternatives I would like to discuss are: Hashgraph and IOTA

(1) Hashgraph
In a single phrase, Hashgraph is a directed acyclic graph (DAG). Sounds too much gibberish? You could call it a digital ledger technology that adopts the concept of gossip about gossip and virtual voting.
Hashgraph solves lots of problems that a blockchain has. Compared to the blockchain, Hashgraph is
-> Faster
-> More secured
-> Fairer

One of the recent platforms which recently launched called ByteBall, this means that DAG is going to take some more technology space in the future!


(2) IOTA

IOTA being an alternative to blockchain technology tries to solve the problem of high power consumption with a new and innovative technology dubbed Tangle. In contrast to blockchain technology, Tangle does not rely on miners to maintain network security.


If I missed other alternatives, please comment :)

Resources:
Learn more about Hashgraph here:
https://101blockchains.com/what-is-hashgraph/
Learn more about ByteBall:
https://101blockchains.com/beginners-guide-what-is-byteball-the-first-dag-platform/
Read more about IOTA
https://101blockchains.com/alternatives-to-blockchain-technology/