Seeding a new coin with the Bitcoin Block chain

[steeldog803]

Has anyone discussed the idea of an alt coin based on refactoring the Bitcoin source that would be "seeded" with the existing Bitcoin block chain?

This would give existing Bitcoin users the option to adopt the copy of their existing coins on the "new" 2.0 block chain.

I don't see why this would not allow us to cast away some of the evil and let lessons be learned to substantially re-implement as many times as necessary without the community falling apart.

If a newly improved Alt coin called Bitcoin 2.0 were to use the data in the block chain would it gain acceptance?

[steeldog803]

Does this make sense to anyone or am I over looking something?

[steeldog803]

Can any dev's comment on this?

[Sunny King]

Sure that's known as a 'hard-fork'.

But why? It's surely a way to declare war against bitcoin developers.

[Ignore@YourPeril]

Sure that's known as a 'hard-fork'.

What is your opinion on the alternate method of seeding by tx to non-existing addresses in the seeding block chain. That is: You seed by destroying your Bitcoin (or PP Coin...), I am sure this could be arranged if bitcoin 2.0 miners were obliged to make a new tx from the coinbase by using information from the original block chain. Would you also consider this hostile?

[c4n10]

Sure that's known as a 'hard-fork'.

What is your opinion on the alternate method of seeding by tx to non-existing addresses in the seeding block chain. That is: You seed by destroying your Bitcoin (or PP Coin...), I am sure this could be arranged if bitcoin 2.0 miners were obliged to make a new tx from the coinbase by using information from the original block chain. Would you also consider this hostile?

I would be for this idea... As much as everyone complains about pre-mining of coins in new alt-currencies, no one ever seems to complain that "Satoshi" and his friends were using Bitcoin before they ever decided to share it with the world, effectively pre-mining it... Starting a Bitcoin 2.0 over from scratch with a public announcement and no pre-mine seems like something that should be embraced by the community but it will never happen because the value of coins on the current chain would crash and a whole lot of people would lose a whole lot of money.

But if someone created a Bitcoin 2.0 chain with public announcement and no pre-mine, I would include that coin on my exchange which is currently in final closed-testing at http://crypto-exchange.us

[Sunny King]

Sure that's known as a 'hard-fork'.

What is your opinion on the alternate method of seeding by tx to non-existing addresses in the seeding block chain. That is: You seed by destroying your Bitcoin (or PP Coin...), I am sure this could be arranged if bitcoin 2.0 miners were obliged to make a new tx from the coinbase by using information from the original block chain. Would you also consider this hostile?

You don't want to access external block chains from inside your altcoin client, that would be an unnecessary security burden. Or you are saying you want to keep two block chain forks on the same client? That would be a lot of trouble and less efficiency.

You can scan unspent output up to a certain height in bitcoin, and aggregate them into a large genesis block. Trim the noises to make the dataset size reasonable (say only outputs >1btc).

[Ignore@YourPeril]

You don't want to access external block chains from inside your altcoin client, that would be an unnecessary security burden.

That is my suggestion. But only in some ´distribution´campaign period, like the 3 years of Freicoin initial distribution. A further sophistication would be to arrange this as a Bitcoin 2.0 bond auction: You auction off a certain amount of Bitcoin 2.0 per month, generated by Bitcoin 1.0 pledged and ultimately transferred by destruction tx´s in that period.

You can scan unspent output up to a certain height in bitcoin, and aggregate them into a large genesis block. Trim the noises to make the dataset size reasonable (say only outputs >1btc).

Would not that benefit exactly the early 1.0 adopters, if you set the height low? Or the hardcore hoarders that did not ever sell a single coin?

[Sunny King]

Would not that benefit exactly the early 1.0 adopters, if you set the height low? Or the hardcore hoarders that did not ever sell a single coin?

Correct. I did not say I favor such a plan but this is what OP wanted to achieve. The height is typically set close to the release time of the new altcoin.

[Ignore@YourPeril]

But would you still consider this hostile towards the 1.0? Someone trying to take over the user base even though it is not by a messy hard-fork?

[Sunny King]

But would you still consider this hostile towards the 1.0? Someone trying to take over the user base even though it is not by a messy hard-fork?

Certainly not as bad as a hard fork. Although I think for all your good intentions, you probably didn't realize it's a lot of trouble to do what you suggested. Not gonna worth it.