User verifies all transactions in his shard to ensure that no extra coins are injected by miners - control of emission.


We don't care about miners' wishes and requirements, through competition they will bear any block size as long as it brings in profit. Shards are created to accommodate reduced storage and bandwidth capacity of users.

These shards are detached from each other, basically being independent currencies. But it's not something unheard of, throughout history people have been operating in parallel standards - gold, silver, copper. In the USA there were multiple coins before establishment of the Federal Reserve. Even now people in borderline zones carry two or three sorts of banknotes in their wallets. So if a technically sound and scalable solution could long-term stop corruption and legalized theft then I would say these conversions between independent currencies/shards would look like minor inconvenience.

Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained. Think of these shards as cloned altcoins with shared (and very high) hashrate.

Yes, that and 1000x bigger transaction throughput, and 100x bigger market cap. All while security and decentralization stay unchanged.
But I guess the masses don't care much about security nor decentralization.

Well, that's quite ironic, my registration being 6 years older than yours. Maybe even older than you.

BCH is all right, at least they don't have crazy BTC transaction fees but increased block size has been a mistake leading to centralization. I think only Roger Ver and Jihan Wu would be able to implement this and to bury Blockstream and their Lightning Network in the process:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109561

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109561
None has implemented it though, otherwise BTLightning would have already crashed.


Miners mine all shards, users verify few, one or none.

You don't need to worry if you don't expose public keys (address reuse). Even if the network shuts down for a while your coins will be safe and developers eventually will figure a solution.

Drivechain is a nebulous structure that few can explain and almost none cares about. There is a simple working construction of multiple altcoins/shards with common PoW and unified interface. Atomic swaps between altcoins/shards can be implemented natively to bypass centralized exchanges:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109561

I'm unsure if it counts as a considerable move but my imagination has stopped there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191219.msg52769870#msg52769870

There is another idea to use atomic swaps to erase volatility:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109561.

With few thousand shards bitcoin price rises to one million and twenty trillion market will be much harder to move than the current one.

I think what he means is one that knows miners' IP addresses can gather and lock them all up. Greetings, the cryptocurrency problem has been solved. Therefore cryptocurrency without onion router isn't a viable concept.

People invested in bitcoin run full nodes to verify what miners are doing and not to keep some network up and running. There aren't many full nodes because current bitcoin implementation is congested, dysfunctional and unusable as peer-to-peer payment system.

There are many ways to scale on-chain like
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109561.
However those millions of people seem to be genuinely uninterested and for now bitcoin is mostly used for trading futures and options by HNWIs.

Proof of Stake and Lightning Network require private keys to be online, so both are security disasters. No wonder they are getting support and funding from certain headquarters.

Transaction fees can go trough the roof so it isn't a problem as many on this forum will reassure you.
The problem is LN dependence on timelocks that will wreak havoc on the world if level 1 gets disabled for an extended period of time.

There is a third way that makes possible small fees and small blocks, all secured by huge hashrate.

Sharding strategy held together by atomic swaps

Hopefully after halvings rational BCH/BSV users and miners will move that way and current BTC will become BLN.

With 2-of-2 multisig address where both merchant and customer park the same amount fast block time isn't necessary, even 24 hours blocks will work just fine.

Here is another idea along these lines for you

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109561.

It's basically a big package of altcoins with a built-in swapping mechanism where linear grow of block size leads to exponential grow of throughput.

A sort of escrow could be 2-of-2 multisig where seller puts one price and buyer puts two prices. But for it to be efficient both funding transactions should be included in the same block. Meaning that besides the usual transaction hash its counter-party transaction hash also should appear in the Merkle tree.

Increased transaction throughput is possible but it will require some thought and effort that an average Joe is unwilling and unable to offer. For the long tail part of the population the current bitcoin block size plus altcoin block sizes seem to be just enough.