You are more than welcome to ignore this topic and stop wasting your time posting here.

If it doesn't even have a "coin" then exactly how can it be an altcoin?

Because it is neither a "sidechain" nor an "altcoin".

Is that easy enough for you?

(it seems that you are expecting me to announce a new "coin")

Exactly why I pointed out the problem with your post.

I have *no intention of making a coin at all* (so your challenge is rather pointless).

No there are not (when it comes to the actual consensus) - you need to read a bit more of Gavin and gmaxwell's posts on this to educate yourself a bit more.

They often have completely different programs to do the same thing just in case one implementation is found to be wrong.

It is also common for large businesses like banks and insurance companies to use more than one computer system (running a completely different OS) to look after their data.

There is never going to be "one single point of failure" for the entire world's Assets - put simply no government is ever going to allow it (and no large serious business is either).

Any decent software engineer knows "you can never fix all the bugs" so there never will be a Bitcoin 1.0 (in terms of something that is 100% reliable).

They are *all running the safe software* so if there is a bug in that software it doesn't matter if there are 1M+ nodes.

Why can you not get this?

As soon as possible being the point - it wasn't fixed instantly - if Bitcoin was holding the entire world's economy and that happened then the repercussions would be *enormous*.

There is a reason why NASA have redundant systems - why do they bother if they could just create one perfect one?

There is a reason why "hedge funds" exist and there is a reason why "insurance" exists and why banks actually have their own servers rather than putting everything into the cloud.

It seems the reason for all these things is not clear to you at all (so there is little point continuing the discussion IMO).

Seriously - we were extremely lucky that the fork didn't cause a lot more trouble.

Perhaps you are not the kind of person to bother with things like "insurance" but I can assure you that the financial world and big business in general are never going to "put all their eggs in one blockchain".

It only needs one serious "zero day" bug to be found to cause a fork (and we already have had one).

Also any stuff about "buying coffee" for Bitcoins at the moment is just plain "silly" (the entire network could only handle 7 TPS - I think you'll find a lot more coffees than 7 per second are sold throughout the world - so if we all started trying to buy our coffees with Bitcoin we'd only succeed in killing Bitcoin).

Having separate chains for things like "vouchers" can do a lot to alleviate trying to do everything on the one blockchain.

Yes - sorry - I forgot that fee replacement is supposed to check that the UTXOs don't change.

But even Gavin firmly advises no-one to accept zero confirmation payments with anything of more than trivial value.

For certain I am not advocating that one should be constantly having to shift funds around from blockchain to blockchain but just that having more than one kind of blockchain is a form of "insurance" against the failure of any particular one.

Because it would allow you to create a tx with a very low fee (that would have little chance of confirming in days) and then replace it with another tx with a higher fee.

Easy money!


It is already possible to effectively do this at the moment (but it's not very easy to do which is why we don't really see this happening much now).

EDIT: removed "brainfart"

With fee replacement it actually would be extremely easy for nearly anyone to do (as tools would be created to do it for you).

Because in the future stocks will be on blockchains also as will property titles, etc.

I would rather that we don't have the world's entire assets relying upon one single blockchain.

The whole "currency" thing is what tends to blind people (and cause most of the silliness).

Blockchains are going to have a hell of a lot more to offer us than currencies (and you should know this better than most).

Clearly you don't have much in the way of serious investments (where are your stocks and property?).

Really - if we end up adding transaction fee replacement (which is expected to occur) then a lot of people are going to be stealing an awful amount of stuff if vendors are silly enough to accept unconfirmed transactions.