Two forks I would like to see: Bitcoin Extended and Bitcoin Drive

[d5000]

Well, as we have already broken the taboo and are about to fork to hundreds or thousands of "Bitcoin-based" altcoin chains (like Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash ...) then we could create some really useful fork-coins.

Two proposals:

- Bitcoin Extended: Bitcoin with Extension blocks (see here for a short description). Extension blocks are a "second layer" technique that enables additional blocks to be created that form a kind of sidechain. They allow to drastically expand the capacity of the blockchain, and not all nodes will have to process all blocks.
- Bitcoin Drive: Bitcoin with the ability to create Drivechains (see here for the proposal). Proposed first by Paul Sztorc, Drivechains are sidechains that are merge-mined and pegged to Bitcoin, and they are validated by the miners themselves. This proposal needs a new opcode that is unlikely to be included into Bitcoin Core.

We could also unite both proposals. My suggestion for a name would be Bitcoin 2L (Bitcoin for Second Layers), because extension blocks and drivechains are very promising second-layer technologies. Lightning Network and offchain techniques would be also possible with it.

Anybody liking to create it? For both technologies, AFAIK there is code available, so no extreme programming skills would be needed.

[pereira4]

Well, as we have already broken the taboo and are about to fork to hundreds or thousands of "Bitcoin-based" altcoin chains (like Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash ...) then we could create some really useful fork-coins.

Two proposals:

- Bitcoin Extended: Bitcoin with Extension blocks (see here for a short description). Extension blocks are a "second layer" technique that enables additional blocks to be created that form a kind of sidechain. They allow to drastically expand the capacity of the blockchain, and not all nodes will have to process all blocks.
- Bitcoin Drive: Bitcoin with the ability to create Drivechains (see here for the proposal). Proposed first by Paul Sztorc, Drivechains are sidechains that are merge-mined and pegged to Bitcoin, and they are validated by the miners themselves. This proposal needs a new opcode that is unlikely to be included into Bitcoin Core.

We could also unite both proposals. My suggestion for a name would be Bitcoin 2L (Bitcoin for Second Layers), because extension blocks and drivechains are very promising second-layer technologies. Lightning Network and offchain techniques would be also possible with it.

Well, as long as they clearly state that they are an altcoin and not BTC, I don't see the problem with it, otherwise they are de-facto attacks on BTC (like segwit2x).

The only way a Bitcoin hardfork would be able to claim that the new chain is the real BTC, is if it got 100% consensus.

There are a lot of cool things that I would like to see on a HF:

https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

[Morphling]

for most people, the only sense of fork means that the btc holder will get a free coin like bcc, but i think the new coin mat not suffer the same fortune as bcc for bcc has a strong support of mine, and no miner show a interest in the new fork coins

[d5000]

Well, as long as they clearly state that they are an altcoin and not BTC, I don't see the problem with it, otherwise they are de-facto attacks on BTC (like segwit2x).

The only way a Bitcoin hardfork would be able to claim that the new chain is the real BTC, is if it got 100% consensus.

Yes, if that really becomes reality , I would strongly be in favour to promote and design this/these fork(s) "as an altcoin", like Bitcoin Cash did, with replay protection and clearly different branding.

https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

I would not have any problems to include more goodies of these hard fork proposals into a "Bitcoin 2L". It could be an experimental coin that is meant to be a showcase to what is possible with Bitcoin blockchain technology today. Maybe we could also call it "Bitcoin Experimental". Well, here I'm starting to dream, haha.

@Morphling: Obviously, there would be free coins, too And if there is low miner interest, maybe a change to an asic-unfriendly algo would be the way to go.

[pereira4]

Well, as long as they clearly state that they are an altcoin and not BTC, I don't see the problem with it, otherwise they are de-facto attacks on BTC (like segwit2x).

The only way a Bitcoin hardfork would be able to claim that the new chain is the real BTC, is if it got 100% consensus.

Yes, if that really becomes reality , I would strongly be in favour to promote and design this/these fork(s) "as an altcoin", like Bitcoin Cash did, with replay protection and clearly different branding.

https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

I would not have any problems to include more goodies of these hard fork proposals into a "Bitcoin 2L". It could be an experimental coin that is meant to be a showcase to what is possible with Bitcoin blockchain technology today. Maybe we could also call it "Bitcoin Experimental". Well, here I'm starting to dream, haha.

@Morphling: Obviously, there would be free coins, too And if there is low miner interest, maybe a change to an asic-unfriendly algo would be the way to go.

Once we have sidechains, a lot of experimentation could happen as sidechains without the need of a hardfork. Now im not sure to what degree does sidechain allow for experimentation. There may still be things that cannot be done as a sidechain and would require a hardfork but I dont know the specifics.

The thing with a hardfork is that if you use the same hashing algo you steal power from the main chain, so these hardforks should use a different algo too (like Bitcoin Gold is going to do)

[bathrobehero]

How about no.


Create an alt if you want without riding on the coattail of BTC causing confusion and potentially exploit people new to Bitcoin. No fork or altcoin will beat Bitcoin so it's just a cheap way of promotion using the name.

[kryptqnick]

Well, as we have already broken the taboo and are about to fork to hundreds or thousands of "Bitcoin-based" altcoin chains (like Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash ...) then we could create some really useful fork-coins.

Two proposals:

- Bitcoin Extended: Bitcoin with Extension blocks (see here for a short description). Extension blocks are a "second layer" technique that enables additional blocks to be created that form a kind of sidechain. They allow to drastically expand the capacity of the blockchain, and not all nodes will have to process all blocks.
- Bitcoin Drive: Bitcoin with the ability to create Drivechains (see here for the proposal). Proposed first by Paul Sztorc, Drivechains are sidechains that are merge-mined and pegged to Bitcoin, and they are validated by the miners themselves. This proposal needs a new opcode that is unlikely to be included into Bitcoin Core.

We could also unite both proposals. My suggestion for a name would be Bitcoin 2L (Bitcoin for Second Layers), because extension blocks and drivechains are very promising second-layer technologies. Lightning Network and offchain techniques would be also possible with it.

Anybody liking to create it? For both technologies, AFAIK there is code available, so no extreme programming skills would be needed.

Gosh, we already have 2 upcoming forks of bitcoin in the nearest future! I think this multiplication of btc versions will not do any good. Why this all started after btc segwit implementation, by the way? Is there some strict connection between it and other forks being provoked?
As for the forks you are talking about, I believed bitcoin cash did the extension of blocks rather nicely and thus Bitcoin Extended doesn't sound like a plan to me, whereas I don't understand what they are really needed for, even though I read about their benefits on drivechain.info.

[BitcoinPicasso]

Sure why not, it gives traders like me a nice opportunity as people exit back to bitcoin from their alts.

[d5000]

Once we have sidechains, a lot of experimentation could happen as sidechains without the need of a hardfork. Now im not sure to what degree does sidechain allow for experimentation. There may still be things that cannot be done as a sidechain and would require a hardfork but I dont know the specifics.

Well, the problem is just that the most decentralized flavour of sidechains (=drivechains) do seem not to have support in the Bitcoin Core team. Or has this changed in the last months? The "federated" sidechains Blockstream is promoting, in my opinion, are consortium blockchains and not really comparable with cryptocurrencies. That is also the driving factor between the "Bitcoin Drive" idea. (It's just a stupid idea until now, there is still no real "plan".)

The thing with a hardfork is that if you use the same hashing algo you steal power from the main chain, so these hardforks should use a different algo too (like Bitcoin Gold is going to do)

Although I don't agree here (there are a lot of "pre-Bitcoin-Cash" SHA256-based altcoins like Peercoin and Terracoin and it doesn't seem that they have "stolen" hashrate) for practical reasons (high difficulty, danger of 51% attack by large Bitcoin miners or pools) it may be a good idea to start the coin with an ASIC-unfriendly algorithm.

Gosh, we already have 2 upcoming forks of bitcoin in the nearest future![...]

It's a current trend in cryptocurrencies, as it was the case with "airdrop coins" some years ago It should not do any harm to Bitcoin if branding is clearly different, as it happened with Bitcoin Cash. I would not even insist on the "Bitcoin" word in its name. But I would like it to be "airdropped" to Bitcoin holders like BCash (to attract Bitcoiners) and NOT to the developers like in the standard pre/instamined sh!tcoins.

As for the forks you are talking about, I believed bitcoin cash did the extension of blocks rather nicely and thus Bitcoin Extended doesn't sound like a plan to me, whereas I don't understand what they are really needed for, even though I read about their benefits on drivechain.info.

The reason I like drivechains and extension blocks is that in these models not all nodes must validate and store the whole blockchain. Validating is the trickier part here, as reducing the required HD space already is possible with standard Bitcoin pruning. Drivechains and Extension blocks allow us to continue with a 1MB "main chain" and almost unlimited scaling via sidechains. In Bitcoin Cash, every node must validate all transactions/blocks, even if they are gigabyte-large.

[jojo69]

for fuck's sake

really?

[d5000]

really?

That depends if someone wants to create it

I for myself am not a coder (I know only a little bit of Python). So maybe you're lucky and this coin will never come into existence. But as for both solutions (extension blocks and drivechains) there is already code available, I maybe could put together a kind of "Frankenstein" alpha version of that coin.

But obviously help from an experienced cryptocurrency developer would be appreciated. The only problem: I would not accept a pre-mine or instamine, it must be a pure "Forkcoin".

[vaughn125]

Well, as we have already broken the taboo and are about to fork to hundreds or thousands of "Bitcoin-based" altcoin chains (like Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash ...) then we could create some really useful fork-coins.

Two proposals:

- Bitcoin Extended: Bitcoin with Extension blocks (see here for a short description). Extension blocks are a "second layer" technique that enables additional blocks to be created that form a kind of sidechain. They allow to drastically expand the capacity of the blockchain, and not all nodes will have to process all blocks.
- Bitcoin Drive: Bitcoin with the ability to create Drivechains (see here for the proposal). Proposed first by Paul Sztorc, Drivechains are sidechains that are merge-mined and pegged to Bitcoin, and they are validated by the miners themselves. This proposal needs a new opcode that is unlikely to be included into Bitcoin Core.

We could also unite both proposals. My suggestion for a name would be Bitcoin 2L (Bitcoin for Second Layers), because extension blocks and drivechains are very promising second-layer technologies. Lightning Network and offchain techniques would be also possible with it.

Anybody liking to create it? For both technologies, AFAIK there is code available, so no extreme programming skills would be needed.

To be honest, I really like the way you think man, this thing here really is a great proposal. Since forks are quite impossible to avoid, why not make something that is actually great to be of use right? I mean, if someone wants to be greedy, then at least make something that is deserving for the fck of other people. I would really want to see what an idea like this would do to the crypto world.

If only i was someone capable of contributing to such a great idea, it would be really awesome to take part. Not for the profit, but for self satisfaction. For my curiosity.
Sadly, I ain’t good at any field needed in the crypto world. Damn sucks to be me.

[Big Naturals]

I'd like to see someone airdrop an IOTA clone on bitcoin hodlers, and then ARDOR clone, then Ethereum clone.

Then do the reverse, bitcoin clone airdropped on IOTA hodlers etc

Just pick the 10 technically most awesome crypto projects, and then do reciprocal airdrops. Would totally clean out the cryptosphere. If everyone owns reciprocal holdings in all the big coins the whole industry would unite.

[d5000]

Since forks are quite impossible to avoid, why not make something that is actually great to be of use right?

Exactly!

I'd like to see someone airdrop an IOTA clone on bitcoin hodlers, and then ARDOR clone, then Ethereum clone.

Then do the reverse, bitcoin clone airdropped on IOTA hodlers etc

Just pick the 10 technically most awesome crypto projects, and then do reciprocal airdrops. Would totally clean out the cryptosphere. If everyone owns reciprocal holdings in all the big coins the whole industry would unite.

Interesting idea and I agree somewhat on the "technically interesting" projects (although IOTA still has to prove that it can work without the Coordinator). Byteball for example is doing something similar already.

However, I think that most of such "fork-coins" will have a hard time establishing themselves because human mind is limited, so most of them would eventually (after the first hype has ended) end with a very small market cap like Auroracoin did. And airdrops are also not totally "fair" because they only consider the owners of a coin at a particular moment. That would lead to pump-and-dump cycles and could negatively influence the stability of the crypto-sphere. (It cannot be avoided, however.)

Also, "totally reciprocal" airdrops are not possible - how to achieve a Bitcoin airdrop to IOTA holders, for example?

[pereira4]

Although I don't agree here (there are a lot of "pre-Bitcoin-Cash" SHA256-based altcoins like Peercoin and Terracoin and it doesn't seem that they have "stolen" hashrate) for practical reasons (high difficulty, danger of 51% attack by large Bitcoin miners or pools) it may be a good idea to start the coin with an ASIC-unfriendly algorithm.

Because these are altcoins and don't have the bitcoin name on it, or have a bunch of people that will receive free coins on them, which will create guaranteed activity that miners will be tempted to mine (at a loss from the original bitcoin blockchain if they share the same hashing algorithm). Miners themselves hold BTC and will want to dump these forked coins too most likely.

It is then preferred that any further bitcoin forks at least have the decency to use a different hashing algorithm.

Im not sure about the development state of sidechain/drivechains.

[d5000]

Im not sure about the development state of sidechain/drivechains.

Both concepts are already some years around.

In late 2016 Sergio Lerner proposed the OP_COUNT_ACKS opcode as a practical way to enable sidechains/drivechains. There was already code, but still "unaudited".  See this BIP.

Then there was this meeting of another group of Drivechain developers (thouse surrounding Paul Sztorc) in August.

As of extension blocks, the most recent proposal I remember is Purse.io/Bcoin's tests in April and this specification. They may have been advanced further since then, however.

There are few informations around what happened with both concepts since these events covered by the Bitcoin media.

So for me it seems both are essentially in "alpha" or "beta" stage; already usable but not ready.

[Bit_Happy]

Well, as we have already broken the taboo and are about to fork to hundreds or thousands of "Bitcoin-based" altcoin chains ...

OP your ideas are great, and I am not able to understand all the tech details, since "the code I write" begins with ideas.
We have a similar goal in this: Living through another ugly cycle of 1,000 new crap coins is not something to look forward to.

(This idea had not been posted in public until now)
The Last Great Fork Left for Mankind!
::Incentives to learn from history

What is that? LOL
We need to check Google?

No results found for "The Last Great Fork Left for Mankind!".
Results for The Last Great Fork Left for Mankind! (without quotes)

```
```
In the wrong hands, it is never anything more than clever marketing, what could be done with it?
Imagine gaining even ~4% of all the ad revenue in this community?
Now what is there that cannot be achieved, almost anywhere in the world?

Build schools for needy students, and eventually make profits.
Build a (virtual) school here for students and hungry sock puppets (Live), seriously me and a few early leaders are teaching "the screaming children" about options for a better life.

Open Source Options + 2010 (Not) "Whale Club" | Club The Whales!
; '2010' is an effort which starts out as a peaceful place for people who "play" w/ ideas, somewhat comparable to the way the brilliant people who arrived at BCT before me used to "play" with Bitcoin when it had ZERO real-world value.

Summary: In public, help the community stop screaming, by offering 'the best and brightest' students a chance to compete for a better life.
In private "really smart people" have a chance to plan "The Last Great Fork Left for Mankind!"  // Everyone who joined this forum before me gets "to play" for free, others pay a very high price (at first), or are selected for an invite.

Not meaning to barge-in, just looking for honest feedback, thanks

Club The Whales!

My talents match well with people who can do "real stuff", since my new and improved (not) a "Bubble Game", starts with unique ideas which no one has ever heard of before, but can be turned into reality.

``
``

//Almost done.. The day I posted this, it had also never been seen in public.

Turtles Eating Whales!

What does "Turtles Eating Whales" mean in the context of this post and this forum?

(Bonus Question) Please design a concept for "Decentralized Virtual Escrow" and if possible use it to create a convenient centralized trading exchange where no single party or company holds a huge pile of customer funds.
(Current options for "safe exchanges" are not usable hardly at all)[/color]

Have a great day

Turtles eating whales represents the idea that taking it slow and cautiously will result in much greater gains than the whales (those with a lot of money to throw around) that are in for a quick in and out, eating/screwing everyone in their path in the hopes of quick money.

Turtles Eating Whales! What does it mean?
# Massive incentives to "do something better" will not stop all forks, but a decent % of "the players" will have better options in all three time frames.