as others have said bitcoin is decentralized..
i feel the idea your trying to convey as an issue is:
"blockdata diversity"

your complaint is everyone has the same blockdata.

even if that data is distributed / decentralized. (no single location of attack).. by everyone having the same data the data is not diverse.

i know what you are trying to get at.
where your thinking that blockchains should work as sidechains.. where each sidechain is like a bankbranch with its own cluster of customers and keeps it own records.

meaning blockchain FARGO shows blocks of transactions of americans.
meaning blockchain EURO shows blocks of transactions of europeans.
meaning blockchain HSBC shows blocks of transactions of easterners.

all linked together by a gatekeeper blockchain IMF

rather than
easterners hold and uses blockchain B.
europeans hold and uses blockchain B.
americans hold and uses blockchain B.

to answer your topic question.. yes it is possible to do sidechains.
but then the issue becomes who are the gate keepers. who created the genesis block of each sidechain.
whats securing it.

lastly. instead of say 130,000 ASICS protecting bitcoin with 440,000 hashes that need to be hacked just to be able to steal satoshi's stash...

imagine people moved funds over to sidechain LQD which is secured by only 12 people in a multi-signing POS hub.. you are sacrificing alot of security measures for their LQD features.

so although possible you need to realise what your losing, what headaches it may cause and what advantage you are gaining.

LN is sacrificing autonomy and replacing it with permissioned payments (dual signed authorisation)
side-chains opens a huge kettle of worms.

ONCHAIN is where the private key holder has sole signing control.

LN is dual signing control. where 2 peers have to work together and agree on what they both should sign/deserve.
(much like a bank/credit union... joint bank account) meaning you are not in sole control.
however they can refuse to sign their part to cause you hassle, but in a joint account/LN you too can also refuse to sign and cause them hassle. so there is (although can be maliciously abused) a economical incentive to both not lose out

exchanges ask you to hand them funds. although exchanges can be social/moral to pay out what is deemed you deserve there is no power by you to refuse, veto them keeping it, and now power blackmail them to sign funds back to you. its literally 100% theirs.
('deposited into MTGox:' "aaannnd its gone!")

exchanges can do fractional reserve. like MTGox, cryptsy, cryptorush, etc. where they pretended to have funds to let people play around on the order books, but the actual bitcoin were else where. (hacked/spent on penthouses who know)

LN is not as straight forward. but yes with the right amount of confidence talking to a naive person you can (not quite) fractionally reserve, but scam your level of collateral to profit elsewhere.

EG
say you paid in 2btc into a LN between you(a) and someone else(b)
you hand (b) 1.999btc for an item. but dont close the channel. meaning you only have 0.001 to your name.. but nothing is showing this onchain. and you now have goods/service to the value of 1.999
now forget about (b) he no longer important...

you then seek out a naive user(c) and because they dont know about LN. you show them the 2btc setup ((a)(b)onchain) tx and claim that as your collateral and saying you have 2btc to your name(yet reality is only 0.001).

you get (c) to open a separate channel with you and request (c) pays in 2btc because you convince them that if they hand you X you owe them Y... (c) pays in and now you hold (c) funds hostage by not signing unless (c) hands you a blackmailed amount.

all because of the myth that you had 2btc collateral.

its not strictly fractional reserve. but its using evidence of funds that dont belong to you to financially gain by faking how much you are actually worth.

Craig wright done this(not as an LN, but as a FIAT banking con/scam). by faking he had 1mill bitcoins to then grab hundreds of millions of australian dollar. even though craig wright didnt own any bitcoin

because in LN the multisig has 2 addresses.. you can sign a message to say that you are involved with that multisig.. which is one confidence layer extra than what craig wright was ever able to do.

again
even if the funds are now technically (b)'s.. showing an outsider the 2btc ONCHAIN exists in a multisig that you can sign a message linked to an address inside the multisig, can get you further than craig wrights 'scam' got him.

use mempool.

the reason to not use tx fee as the indication is that the tx fee is no longer 'reactive' but instead its now 'averaged'
meaning if a time period had 2500 transactions then the next time period had 0 transactions. the 'estimated fee' would go down due to low demand on the old 'reactive' metric. but due to 'averaging' the tx fee remains high even when theres no transactions waiting

here ill show you.
imagine the demand was average.. a block can take 2500tx and is happily seeing 2000tx. and lets say for 24 blocks people pay 0.0001 just for the sake of it.

now imagine the next block(25th) averaged 0.00250 fee due to a fee war maker. even when tx demand is low.. .. here is the results of what the "average" metric does to the estimated fee, simply due to one block with a high fee, triggering it


EG
block26 is not 0.0001 again. instead it goes up to 0.000196 due to 1-24 at 0.0001 and 25th at 0.0025
block27 goes up goes up further because theres only 23 blocks at 0.0001, a block at 0.0025, and now a block at 0.000196 swaying the average up
block27 goes up goes up further because theres only 22 blocks at 0.0001, a block at 0.0025, and now 2 blocks over 0.000196 swaying the average up

so even without actual tx's waiting.. the fee estimator (fee war game) is causing issues unrelated to actual transactional demand.

note. the example above is not the code concept of bitcoin. its a demonstration that averages rather than reaction to demand, can affect the price and has little to no correlation to demand

the result is HEX not ascii.

hex only uses 4 bits per hex 'character/digit' not 8 bits per 'character/digit'
so
FF in binary is 11111111
its not 11111111 11111111

so FF is one byte not 2 bytes

in short hex is more 'binary efficient' than ascii because you can fit more 'character/digit' per byte, compared to ascii

even people that love core want dynamic blocksize. the only argument they can come up with though is that they would only TRUST gmaxwell to write the code for it. they are even screaming to tell the community that core never said no to a increase of the base blocksize, they just waiting for gmaxwell who proposed a dynamic blocksize LAST YEAR!

afterall the altcoin dooms day myth has been busted. all that will happen is an elevation of possible orphan rate due to how small or large the minority is (hense 95%+ acceptability to implement). making under 5% (under 250 of 5000 nodes) not sync and need to upgrade.

afterall the bloat doomsday myth has been busted. 4mb bloat is acceptable

so the solution/compromise is obvious. core tweak their segwit code to 2mb base 4mb weight.. call it 0.13.1b release it alongside 0.13.1 and let the community choose to download either 0.13.1 or 0.13.1b

atleast if everyone happily downloads 0.13.1b segwit also gets activated by default too.
if there is no desire of a jump in base block.. then no one will download 0.13.1b and it wont activate. meaning no harm either fanboys just download 0.13.1 instead

but simply preventing even letting the community have the release to even have a choice under their 'trusted' brand they wont run away from. is no longer the right course of action

then. when activated and we have more REAL capacity because the buffer has increased. that gives alot more time to code new features instead of these stupid delays

or your missing the even bigger picture, the one outside of the box.

dual-signed permission payments that are not same day(usually 10min-hour) immutable transactions as bitcoin.
also requiring prepaid fee's just to use LN and penalty fee's for 'spending' once inside. and penalties of closing the service early or not agreeing to sign efficiently.
(it boggled my mind all the penalties the LN creators are dreaming up to make hubs(bank2.0) profit)

anyway, you need to really look at what the ethos of bitcoin was designed for. and then look at what its being switched into.

and all i bet you can reply with is "it cant compete against visa's 1billion customer base next month without LN".
to which i will reply. we dont and wont have a billion users using bitcoin next month we dont need to be at that rate next month or next year

let alone not having to worry about 1 billion users.. bitcoin is not even accepted in all the locations visa is. so the transaction count is less.

EG Visa handles on average 42tx a month(for each customer) for a billion customers
bitcoin averages people do 1 transaction a week for about 2.5 million bitcoin users.

what we NEED is to get passed the 2.5million average user utility we are limited at, and get to lets say a 5-10million user utility short term. then grow naturally as bitcoin grows.

1mb =2.5m users doing genuine bitcoin transactions
1mb =260,000 users doing comparable transaction utility to visa

2mb base 1.6mb witness(not combined weight) = 9.1m users doing genuine bitcoin transactions
2mb base 1.6mb witness(not combined weight) = 940,000 users doing comparable transaction utility to visa

again bitcoin is not spendable in all retailers so forget the visa stat(42 uses a month). knowing an average bitcoiner only uses bitcoin once a week
moving to dynamic segwit blocks(with a safe 2mb base 4mb weight) allows for 9.1m bitcoiners to do what they do on average.
moving to restricted segwit blocks(with limit 1mb base 4mb weight) allows for 4.55m bitcoiners to do what they do on average.

i would say going to 4.5m-9mill average user capacity while remaining in the 4mb weight, which core deem safe, is an achievable goal short term and allows more users to use bitcoin. or a quarter of current bitcoiners to start spending 10x more often than usual
without hidden fee's and penalties like LN is promising hubs(bank2.0) can profit from

the block reward is the income.. the fee is the bonus.. the switch over when fee's become important wont be for a few decades.
also research has noted that due to the energy efficiency of ASICS and the average amount of asics used to confirm a block, the block reward alone is making pools PROFIT. not loss. (im guessing IC3 probably used worse case scenario electric and asic costs. not rational values)
in short pools are making a profit, not a loss

so fee's are not a subsidy. again they are categorized right now as a bonus.

lastly. the delays of segwit and the fee war have caused a fee price hike. so the mindset of segwits 'discount' proposals last year would have been 4 cents discounted to 1cent.. but now reality of only 1.8x capacity (not 4x) and todays average fee.. is:
7cents discounted to just shy of 4cents
or your 11cents discounted to just over 6cents. which is not really the proposed and hyped 'discount' price expectation given last year.

with the new 'average fee' rather than reactive fee metrics, the fee will be higher by the time segwit is activated. so in no way, shape, or form can anyone expect to pay under 4 cents even after discount and still gain 'priority' based on a low priority transaction before adding a fee. 

and now you see the economics problem the bankers of blockstream are pushing for.
their solution is then dual authorisation offchain payments... hmmm... and i wonder who will be running these hubs.

duel authorisation.. hmm thats what banks do.. sounding familiar?

so segwit(wuille) and LN(rustyrussel). are coded by guys that are paid by banks. trying to pull people away from bitcoins immutable and independent blockchain into dual-authorised payment methods with fee's attached........ im surprised im even having to spell it out for people

anyway. back on topic.
fee's need to stay practical at only a few pennies/cents at MOST. to not cause a barrier of entry (world wide).
CODE needs to strengthen the 'spam guards' not fee's
scalability needs to grow naturally and eventually AFTER DECADES of growth cover the mining cost burden, not months

this news is 3 years old.
this topic should be put in the trash just like the hard drive was over 3 years ago.

as for answering the op question..
the coins were spread over a few addresses. in 2009. and then ended up in landfill before 2013. news started reporting in 2013 that should he have kept the coins/laptop. he would have been a multi-millionaire

your thinking more like a banker that only lives and thinks about america... try opening your mind to borderless whole world utility

over the next 120 YEARS. not days.


the hearn clan is actually the same as the blockstream clan.. i guess you didnt know that hearn R3.. gmaxwell, wuille blockstream are working together.. that was the ultimate bait and switch.
go look at gmaxwell and wuilles contract and employers. oh look BANKERS
yea even gavin(DCG) and garzik(BLOQ) are now in the banker pockets too... more bait and switching..

so far Ver is the only non-banker-bought independant.
as soon ver trades in his morals.. (hopefully never) and all the 'wallets' are in the pockets of bankers.. bitcoin is no longer independent.
you can stick your head in the sand and defend a banker buy attacking others as a distraction or ignorance of which side your on..

and im starting to think its the bankers (R3,DCG,blockstream) group thats spamming the network to try advertising the need to get everyone to activate segwit. but worded the opposite to blame ver, as the bait and switch to scare people over to segwit.. like a double con that hearn played

economic fee war and fee market are buzz words of the bankers.
CODE should solve the problems not fee's.
fearmongering scenarios of decades-century as the need of economic measures now is a failure to understand logic, code and technology.

when the bitcoin valuation reaches a certain average the minimum fee should be dropped
EG
the fee was averaging under 1 cent in 2012.. 0.001 @$6/btc (0.6cent)  (100sat/byte)

then the fee went down to 0.0001 (10sat/byte)
....

soon it should go down to 0.00001 (1sat/byte) so that when the fiat valuation goes above $1k the tx fee is still 'pennies'
then in future it should go down to 0.000001 1sat/10byte so that when the fiat valuation goes above $10k the tx fee is still 'pennies'
then in future it should go down to 0.0000001 1sat/100byte so that when the fiat valuation goes above $100k the tx fee is still 'pennies'
to atleast keep the minimum tx fee in the 'pennies' rate.

we dont need to worry about that now.. thats a thing that can happen naturally over DECADES, when it becomes needed. not a current issue.
at the moment blockreward=income.. fee=bonus... in DECADES it flips to fee=income reward=bonus. and in a century it becomes fee only.
so not an issue.

also more ONCHAIN transactions by scaling ONCHAIN will solve it.
after all do you want 4500 people paying $3 a tx each in 30 years because core kept the base block at 1mb for 30 years.
or have something like many thousands of people paying 3cents max because over 30 years scaling was allowed ONCHAIN

after all we are talking ATLEAST SIXTEEN years to a century in the future before fee's become important. if you go backward 16 years you will see the evolution of technology and know that things can move further in the future. so crying now about 64mb blocks in the future... is like:
at the millenium crying that 1mb is insane and wont be acceptable in 2016..
or back in 1984 crying that 15kb not being acceptable at the millenium.

EG
lets say 2017: 2mb base 4mb weight = 9000tx (yea i know dreaming that core give in to a version of segwit with dynamic baseblock, i know i know)
lets say 2020: 4mb base 8mb weight = 18000tx
before you say it.. calm down.. even in africa vodafone are starting 5G networks so it will be the norm by 2020
before you say it.. calm down.. fibre cables are starting so it will be the norm by 2020
lets say 2024: 8mb base 16mb weight = 36000tx
lets say 2028: 16mb base 32mb weight = 72000tx
lets say 2032: 32mb base 64mb weight = 144000tx

and then take into account a scenario of the block reward
year      BR            Fiat/btc      block reward value
2012      25            $120         $3,000
2013      25            $240         $6,000
2014      25            $400         $10,000
2015      25            $480         $12,000
before you say it.. calm down.. lets say we dont quadruple value in 4 years
2016      12.5         $700         $8,750
before you say it.. calm down.. lets say we dont near double value in 1 years but instead only double every 4 years(safe worse case scenario)
2020      6.25         $1,400      $8,750
2024      3.125         $2,800      $8,750
2028      1.5625      $5,600      $8,750
2032      0.78125      $11,200      $8,750

now we put it together assuming the tx fee stays around 6cents (as a worse case scenario for next 16 years)
year      BR             Fiat/btc     BR value   tx count   txfee      bonus      total(BR+fee)
2020      6.25          $1,400      $8,750      18000      6c         $1080      $9,830
2024      3.125         $2,800      $8,750      36000      6c         $2160      $10,910
2028      1.5625       $5,600      $8,750      72000      6c         $4320      $13,070
2032      0.78125      $11,200   $8,750      144000      6c         $8640      $17,390

or we go with a core doomsday
year      BR            Fiat/btc      BR value   tx count   txfee      bonus      total(BR+fee)
2020      6.25         $1,400      $8,750      4500         24c      $1080      $9,830
2024      3.125         $2,800   $8,750         4500      48c      $2160      $10,910
2028      1.5625      $5,600      $8,750      4500         96c      $4320      $13,070
2032      0.78125      $11,200   $8,750         4500      $1.92      $8640      $17,390

knowing tech wont be a problem in 16 years.
would you think bitcoin is best kept at 1mb base for 16 years costing people $1.92 to use bitcoin. for only 4500tx every ~10 minutes
would you think bitcoin grow ON CHAIN naturally for 16 years costing people $0.06 to use bitcoin. allowing 14400tx every ~10 minutes

obviously who would use bitcoin if limited use and nearly $2 a time..vs less limited use and 6cent a time.

segwit is to push for offchain, which is where LN hubs (bank2.0) make profit from permission transactions (hub dual-authorises with customer and takes a fee for the privilege)

those coding LN are already conceptualising a 0.0006($4+) prepay buyin/deposit just to use LN to ensure the hub gets paid. even if the customers dont use it theres a penalty fee, if the customer closes channel early theres a penalty fee.

all explained here (cant be bothered to repeat it all)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1686040.msg16925401#msg16925401
basically $4 buyin and only works out cheaper if in a 10day lockin the user does hundreds-thousands of transactions

forget coffee.. think internationally!!

$2 is a weeks wage in some countries
suggesting 10cents (2 hours labour) is acceptable and a weeks wage is "spam" is the mindset of close minded people.

bitcoin should not be limited to developed countries, but open to any country. where CODE is used to limit spam. not economics
only the bank loving devs believe that economics is the answer. which makes me lose faith in those devs as coders because they are ignoring CODE as the answer to 'spam'

as for anyone thinking segwit is going to offer big discounts your wrong. the fee war over the last 11 months has made the average tx high, that segwits discount is just backdating prices back to last year..
its like going to walmart and seeing the price of some produce double in price just so they can stick a 50% off price ticket on afterwards, even if the discount is the same as before the proposal.

as for anyone thinking LN is going to offer big discounts its not (explained here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1686040.msg16925401#msg16925401)

basically proposing $4 (0.0006) PRE-PAY fee just to use it. and it only works out cheap if you do thousands of tx's in the 10day lockin the scenario suggest..
the scenario and price examples are wrote by those coding LN..

the scenario also says
use it only once or twice, your penalised. try to close the channel early to not be penalized, guess what your penalized.

again LN is NOT USING CODE to mitigate error, blackmail or DDoS risks.. it uses economics.. completely ridiculous!!
but hey. when you see how the devs coding these 'features' are paid its becomes obvious why they prefer economics rather than logic/code

seems like a boring topic. lets see if it even holds merit..

so you pick a number of significance then find a date it occurred? is that the game?

anyway lets see if 1109 was the special number


... guess not

is round 2 of the game finding $666?

holding it hostage??
um... like core not coding something so holding the other bip hostage by not even having a release available. which is far more hostile then having code released but people choose not to use it.

also are you presume bitcoin is going to jump in utility by a factor of 20, in days, weeks, months, years..?
seems your opinion is that its going to jump in days-months and so your upset that bitcoin cant cope.. yet RATIONALLY bitcoin utility will grow over YEARS and in those YEARS larger blocks would be happily relayable.

the main community is not saying jump to 20mb in weeks-months. its instead asking for a rational growth over rational time without having to beg devs "can i have some more" every couple years. by allowing the growth to be dynamic and not controlled by a team of people paid by banks.

its also worth looking at the bait and switch proposals and who actually proposed them, to then realise that it was done to scare people into loving core

though % has some merit worldwide. and under 1% wold be ideal. bitcoin is  'amount' not % so. thinking of no entry of barrier world wide utility i would have to say:

1cent should be the limit.

third world countries deem 1cent to be atleast 10 minutes minimum wage work.
think of it like living in america, the equivalent of $2.50 as a way to imagine how the third world think about one U.S cent
think of it like living in UK, the equivalent of £1.25 as a way to imagine how the third world think about one U.S cent

5cents is an hours labour in a few countries. imagine it if your american or british as if it was an hours minimum wage labour.

spam should be solved by rejecting transactions of hundreds of sigops to allow thousands of people to transact instead of one transaction.
spam should be solved by using transaction maturity(like block reward coinbase maturity). by making it unspendable for X blocks. so people cant just respend every block
spam should be solved by code.. not economics

seems someone is mentioning the bankers and XT, classic and blockstream

hmm..


hint: "bait and switch"

i require no interaction from that person nor response. i will just leave this here for anyone to work out in their own time what it is hinting

i will just mention that tarring BU with the same brush is a bit pathetic right now. because strange as it is. its actually been blockstream, employee's and fans that have been demanding BU fork off.

if only people learn what consensus meant. they would understand the debate better.

ill just leave this here.

and let you figure out what its all about

yea.. nothing gencoin code related.. but she did screw up with the BANKING shell game of setting up dummy companies with banks accounts to move funds around bank accounts. she said it was safe against the usual 'authorities' from finding the money.
but hey there is not much you can do to "code" a bank account. so not really a coding error. more so a bad shell game (you know 3 shells/cards on a table and you have to guess where the pearl/queen is after its shuffled around)

she essentially she screwed up with banking, not cryptocurrency..

but sticking with the topic.
the series wasted many episodes on VC investment explanations rather than coding/ showing that the code can be real money by not needing money upfront... kinda lame overall

no.
R3 was a consortium that demanded a members fee. and not quite a tax rightoff..

but now the banks are in hyperledger (a tax right off foundation) there is no need of the membered consortium
the banks are still doing their private blockchains. but now being more direct in their approach while also now getting all the tax breaks.

the banks have not given up "blockchain" idea's they are just re-organising themselves into a foundation instead of a consortium.

know your enemy. the banks are still in the battle, they are just reinforcing/reorganising their troops

20th-22nd october.. R3 joins hyperledger
http://www.the-blockchain.com/2016/10/20/r3-blockchain-consortium-open-source-corda-platform-make-available-linux-hyperledger/
http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/10/22/r3-corda-hyperledger-open-source/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3134014/bankers-plan-to-give-corda-blockchain-code-to-hyperledger-project.html

in spring 2016
R3 got banks to pay a members fee into a consortium pot and then some of that went into the hyperledger foundation.
in autumn 2016
now the banks are getting rid of the consortium and paying direct into the hyperledger foundation

research if you dont want to be spoon fed:
santander invested in R3 and DAH.. DAH is part of hyperledger. santander dropped R3 but still part of DAH
goldman sachs invested in R3 and DAH.. DAH is part of hyperledger. goldman sachs dropped R3 but still part of DAH

if you prefer to be spoonfed
http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/goldman-sachs-r3-blockchain-consortium/
then look at
https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members

hopefully this should now have everyone uptodate with why, what, who and where the bankers stand

oh... and this should wake everyone up too..


hopefully this should now have everyone uptodate with why, what, who and where the devs like
Greg maxwell (Gmaxwell, nullc), Pieter wuille(sipa), matt corrallo(bluematt), christian decker (cdecker) and a dozen others stand