Forked block chain

[TierNolan]

Re-broadcasting from where?  You need the private key to sign the transaction.

I mean scanning each chain, and if a transaction is included in one, it is added to the other (if valid in both).

[wingding]

I don't understand your objection.  The coins that are valid on both sides of the fork have nothing to do with each other. 

The point is that if you sign the transaction in one fork, the recipient can submit the same transaction to the main chain and also get your coin there.

But how is re-broadcasting prevented in the main chain as it is?

Re-broadcasting from where?  You need the private key to sign the transaction.

I mean, what stops the recipient (or anyone else) from submitting the same (and already signed) transaction over again?

[wingding]

I've always thought of this for a way to start an alt-coin. The fact that all bitcoin holders automatically becomes alt-coin owners could give it som traction. Or it would just give people some free fraction of bitcoins as they trade their alt-coin for bitcoins as soon as the first exchange opens.

You would have to change the algorithm to find blocks though or you will be vulnerable to a 51% attack from the bitcoin mining pools.

Does changing the algorithm have to mean it's not sha2 and does not fit new asics created for bitcoin or is there an option to change only the output req?

My thought is to use merged mining. So it would be the same algorithm to find blocks. One have to rearrange the block data structure for the alt-chain, so that main chain transactions are part of the nonce. Similar to what (I think) they do for namecoin.

[yona]

Wingding
I have read your other posts
I think this discussion is very interesting as it deals with one issue that i think BitCoin will have to address sooner or later: a hard fork
I was reading another discussion regarding regulation which questioned the same option, only this time the goverment/regulators might wish to hardfork the blockchain and create a 'safer' coin, one that can be traced and taxed. In return this coin might have legitemacy in mainstream exchange and buisness which could up it's value.
Now the question was: which side of the fork would most current bitcoin users choose. Regulated high cap or freedom low cap?
Same question here, people might be pushed to make a choice.

But does having a choice not devalue both systems?

[wingding]

Wingding
I have read your other posts
I think this discussion is very interesting as it deals with one issue that i think BitCoin will have to address sooner or later: a hard fork
I was reading another discussion regarding regulation which questioned the same option, only this time the goverment/regulators might wish to hardfork the blockchain and create a 'safer' coin, one that can be traced and taxed. In return this coin might have legitemacy in mainstream exchange and buisness which could up it's value.
Now the question was: which side of the fork would most current bitcoin users choose. Regulated high cap or freedom low cap?
Same question here, people might be pushed to make a choice.

But does having a choice not devalue both systems?

This is interesting but off-topic (non-technical) and deserves a separate thread. But my opinion in short is: Governments will certainly take the technology in use with FIAT money - sometime and somehow. But they will not care about intercepting bitcoin.  

[AlexMerced]

Wingding
I have read your other posts
I think this discussion is very interesting as it deals with one issue that i think BitCoin will have to address sooner or later: a hard fork
I was reading another discussion regarding regulation which questioned the same option, only this time the goverment/regulators might wish to hardfork the blockchain and create a 'safer' coin, one that can be traced and taxed. In return this coin might have legitemacy in mainstream exchange and buisness which could up it's value.
Now the question was: which side of the fork would most current bitcoin users choose. Regulated high cap or freedom low cap?
Same question here, people might be pushed to make a choice.

But does having a choice not devalue both systems?

This is interesting but off-topic (non-technical) and deserves a separate thread. But my opinion in short is: Governments will certainly take the technology in use with FIAT money - sometime and somehow. But they will not care about intercepting bitcoin.  

a government would just create their implementation, which is probably why they havn't cared much about bothering the bitcoin community because they can make use of the improving technology as well (I mean could intellgience agencies conduct covert operations with other intelligence agencies easier with crytocurrency, a though, easy that carrying around pallets of cash)

[yona]

I read the ECB report regarding digital currency. It actually states that the effects of deflation are not predictable.
Your predictions make apealling sense, but are also subject to unknown factors yet to come or reoccur...

In short, we can only try to predict the future with our limited knowlage of the present.

I think that the first desicion to limit bitcoin production and keep it constantly deflatory might guard it from some of these unforseen events . It sort of allows it to 'fly low'

What i mean to say is that it might not be the most efficent way for the coin to be adapted, esp in current flactuation shifts, but it might be a safe guard from other hazards by constantly making an apeal to early adopters to 'get hold of some coins' and promise a deflative reward.
Keep in mind this currency in adopted by only a very small precent of the population right now, and although it has already very big gaps between 'rich' and 'poor' it still has a long way to go before it is widly adopted.

Still, i think your experiment, either by theory or real implementation is a valuble tool to learn more.

Good luck with it.