Bitcoin Forum
December 15, 2018, 06:00:31 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Why not a single coin with multiple blockchains?  (Read 427 times)
monsanto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1235
Merit: 1004


..like bright metal on a sullen ground.


View Profile
February 11, 2016, 07:36:43 AM
 #1

Here is my idea: You have a single coin, with a single wallet, that has multiple independent blockchains. So you'd have Netcoin1, Netcoin2, Netcoin3... Netcoin10.  You could start with as many blockchains as you'd like (although number is set at the start), with a total preset number of total coins identical for each.

This way you would have with 10 blockchains, each an equivalent size to bitcoin's, the same as 10x the transaction volume of BTC. They would all use a single wallet, with a shapeshift like system (or decentralized if possible) for trading between chains that could only exchange 1:1. All coins would be considered equal. This way instead of worrying about increasing the block size, you have parallel blockchains of a smaller size.

This would also incentive miners to keep the hashrates equivalent, as they would jump back and forth to find lower difficulty. The average user could have their coins spread over many blockchains, and the wallet would choose the one that is currently cheapest and fastest to use for any particular transaction.

Obviously this is just a rough sketch of an idea, but why wouldn't something like this work?  Huh

The drug of the new era will be free and unencumbered exchange of value.
1544853631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1544853631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1544853631
Reply with quote  #2

1544853631
Report to moderator
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1544853631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1544853631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1544853631
Reply with quote  #2

1544853631
Report to moderator
Jet Cash
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1345


Debt is slavery - fight the banksters.


View Profile WWW
February 11, 2016, 08:26:01 AM
 #2

I believe that you would need to keep the whole history of a Bitcoin in the same chain, this would get difficult if you tried to combine coins from different chains in a new transaction. It's not the storage space that's the problem, and your solution wouldn't reduce that anyway. In fact it would probably increase it as you would need to add a chain identifier to each transaction.

IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT THE FIT TO TALK PROJECT
I have changed the registration procedure to make it easier to join.
Sign up now, and help Bitcoin Talk by improving your English.
monsanto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1235
Merit: 1004


..like bright metal on a sullen ground.


View Profile
February 11, 2016, 08:55:13 AM
 #3

I believe that you would need to keep the whole history of a Bitcoin in the same chain, this would get difficult if you tried to combine coins from different chains in a new transaction. It's not the storage space that's the problem, and your solution wouldn't reduce that anyway. In fact it would probably increase it as you would need to add a chain identifier to each transaction.

I'm not suggesting keeping the entire history on a single chain. I'm saying the chains are independent, yet identical in terms of technical specs, and joined together in a wallet system.

The drug of the new era will be free and unencumbered exchange of value.
shorena
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1278


No I dont escrow anymore.


View Profile WWW
February 11, 2016, 09:22:20 AM
 #4

I believe that you would need to keep the whole history of a Bitcoin in the same chain, this would get difficult if you tried to combine coins from different chains in a new transaction. It's not the storage space that's the problem, and your solution wouldn't reduce that anyway. In fact it would probably increase it as you would need to add a chain identifier to each transaction.

I'm not suggesting keeping the entire history on a single chain. I'm saying the chains are independent, yet identical in terms of technical specs, and joined together in a wallet system.

Yeah, but this also means 10 times (plus new overhead) costs for running a full node in terms of storage.
7788bitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1000


Presale Starting May 1st


View Profile
February 11, 2016, 09:26:32 AM
 #5

Multiple blockchains already means they are different systems. Do you mean you have two different accounting for the same company- one for legal and one for illegal?

     ▄▄██▄▄
 ▄▄██████████▄▄
████████████████
████████████████
█████▀▀  ▀▀█████
█▀▀          ▀▀█
     ▄▄██▄▄
 ▄▄██████████▄▄
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
 ▀▀██████████▀▀
     ▀▀██▀▀
INVESTA     ▄▄██▄▄
 ▄▄██████████▄▄
████████████████
████████████████
█████▀▀  ▀▀█████
█▀▀          ▀▀█
     ▄▄██▄▄
 ▄▄██████████▄▄
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
████████████████
 ▀▀██████████▀▀
     ▀▀██▀▀
tobacco123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 11, 2016, 09:29:26 AM
 #6

We are about to have this happening!!

Bitcoins on 3 different blockchains: bitcoincore, bitcoin-XT and bitcoinclassic!

arbitrage
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 11, 2016, 09:42:36 AM
 #7

Why we must think how to complicate things more?
We have greater problems, for example blockchain is large and you need 50gb hdd to store it .
Better find out how to reduce size of it..
yenxz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 11, 2016, 11:27:12 AM
 #8

Here is my idea: You have a single coin, with a single wallet, that has multiple independent blockchains. So you'd have Netcoin1, Netcoin2, Netcoin3... Netcoin10.  You could start with as many blockchains as you'd like (although number is set at the start), with a total preset number of total coins identical for each.

This way you would have with 10 blockchains, each an equivalent size to bitcoin's, the same as 10x the transaction volume of BTC. They would all use a single wallet, with a shapeshift like system (or decentralized if possible) for trading between chains that could only exchange 1:1. All coins would be considered equal. This way instead of worrying about increasing the block size, you have parallel blockchains of a smaller size.

This would also incentive miners to keep the hashrates equivalent, as they would jump back and forth to find lower difficulty. The average user could have their coins spread over many blockchains, and the wallet would choose the one that is currently cheapest and fastest to use for any particular transaction.

Obviously this is just a rough sketch of an idea, but why wouldn't something like this work?  Huh
great idea,but hard to achieve it. maybe blockchain just want to provide precious and expensive coin,not cheap and scamable coin Grin
mavrick951
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 97
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 11, 2016, 11:53:53 AM
 #9

We are about to have this happening!!

Bitcoins on 3 different blockchains: bitcoincore, bitcoin-XT and bitcoinclassic!

Not sure if you are kidding, but this would not be as good as you put it. Instead, only one stream would survive in the end, which is not necessarily good, right?
HardFlaccid
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 11, 2016, 12:09:27 PM
 #10

I'm not an expert on it, in fact my knowledge is very limited, but I don't think it's possible for a single coin to have multiple blockchains!
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!