The "interblocknet" (a possible future of the service industry)

[CuntChocula]

I see it differently... Nothing stops any nation or country from starting their own Blockchains. The reasons most of these countries are hesitant to join in on the

Bitcoin Blockchain = TRUST. ...

...and the fact that nations wish to control and issue their own currencies. So that the fate of their economy is not directly linked to the fate of, for instance, Somali economy. Just like they wish to maintain their boarders and have own standing armies.
Because countries are like that.

[thejaytiesto]

As of TODAY, POW is the absolute king. No other method to deal with validation of transactions can be as secure and as solid as a POW with a strong amount of hashing power behind to back it up. Therefore, the more people in the same blockchain, the more resistant this blockchain, and the more valuable the token since it's backed by a lot of people running nodes and machines to process transactions.

Spreading this hashing power around would make Bitcoin less secure, therefore less valuable. The ideal scenario is 1 core blockchain, with conservative block size so people can run nodes on their bedroom, and an insanely amount of hashing power to back this core blockchain, then layers on top (LN, sidechains). Everything else is a waste of time AND resources. This is why I have massive doubts of any alt being relevant long term.

[CIYAM]

Spreading this hashing power around would make Bitcoin less secure, therefore less valuable. The ideal scenario is 1 core blockchain, with conservative block size so people can run nodes on their bedroom, and an insanely amount of hashing power to back this core blockchain, then layers on top (LN, sidechains). Everything else is a waste of time AND resources. This is why I have massive doubts of any alt being relevant long term.

Your point is noted - and I am not a fan of alt coins in general (and CIYAM is not even a "coin" at all) but I do think that you need to "spread the risk" over more than one network in case of systematic failure.

[maokoto]

Can be a very good solution, and I not consider a problem to have to convert between blockchains. It could be programmed to be transparent or automatic exchanges. Just as you convert from one altcoin to another now.

[labwork]

What is the "interblocknet" and why does it matter?

The revolution that Bitcoin has started with money will continue with services but as we know Bitcoin will never scale to handle all of the world's transactions so how will this be managed?

IMO we are going to end up with many blockchains (most likely one blockchain per major service or even company) that allow for specific service payments which will remove the "middle-men" (i.e. websites currently who are instead replaced with "miners").

Consider something like Uber - do drivers really need to pay a % fee to a company in order to offer a service?

If there was instead a "blockchain service" whose tokens were perhaps "kms of travel" then you can do away with the centralised website and the commissions (only requiring a mining fee to keep that blockchain going).

It is possible that these will be "side-chains" although I think it might be wise to have more than one "core blockchain" (in case of systematic failure).

THis vision excites me a lot. I don't think one blockchain per major service, but perhaps one per major type of service (e.g. one for e-commerce that would work for Amazon, ebay, wal-mart, etc etc).

This is the future, for sure. I'm so happy to be one of the people grasping it first hand!

[pereira4]

I think I agree with you a bit in spreading risk a bit in terms of a failure of the main blockchain, but it's a very complicated thing, as noted by other poster, spreading hashing power means the tradeoff of the coin losing security, over the assumption that this loss of security is a positive tradeoff in case the blockchain fails (so you would have another one).

We would have to look at the realistic scenarios of the blockchain actually failing. If one fails, the other would fail too, unless it was different, for example one blockchain using SHA256 and the other using another algo... (so the blockchain failure would need to be algo-failure related because I can't think of any other scenario where a fatal failure would happen, and even thinking that the algo has some kind of backdoor as noted in other threads is very sci-fi to me) but right now I cant picture how this would be viable.

[Erkallys]

blockchains per company will piss people off having to convert each time they use a different store or service..

maybe sidechains, where each side chain represents a continent, or a country.. and if user adoption gets too high in that main area, creating a bottle neck. then new sub-side chains are created to represent a smaller population base of that area ( states, provinces, counties)

that way people are not
1. worried the chain becomes useless if a company goes into bankruptcy, taking their miners offline
2. swapping between currencies every time they want to shop locally.
3. worried funds wont disappear as its based on geographic location rather than company.

also if one company was using a chain.. it would just be a ledger, and no real point in the decentralized blocks.. (unless its a international company or something with 1000 different stores). but even so swapping applecoin for bitcoin then into walmart coin.. or even applecoin after buying an ipad to then change directly into walmart coin to then spend walmart coin.. is a few too many transactions in the middle, that people wont like.

they would prefer however UKcoin  to buy things in the uk and only swap if they are going on holiday abroad

(i expect you to knit pick and whinge like a school girl.. so have a cup of coffee first and think about it for a while)

I don't think that it is a bad idea. The comapny could offer to convert it into bitcoins or fiat. A good use of this is about non-monetary advantages (I don't if this is the best way to it), like fidelity cards. One would receive points, in fact coins from the huge premined, or maybe totally premined crypto-currency of the shop, on his fidelity card.

[CIYAM]

We would have to look at the realistic scenarios of the blockchain actually failing. If one fails, the other would fail too, unless it was different, for example one blockchain using SHA256 and the other using another algo...

Indeed IMO each major blockchain would use a different algorithm (whether we are just stalking a different POW or something entirely different).

To a fair extent I think that Litecoin has actually paved the way forward pretty well (as it has kept up with all the recent improvements added to Bitcoin and even has ASIC mining now so is backed by a lot of computing power).