I got an idea: THROW AWAY THE BLOCKCHAIN

[Cryptoshaft]

and with the idea like this, you can't see your transaction history from years ago isn't it ?

[1714077839]

1714077839

[ir.hn]

and with the idea like this, you can't see your transaction history from years ago isn't it ?

Special "historical nodes" could be the keeper of that history.

[Cryptoshaft]

and with the idea like this, you can't see your transaction history from years ago isn't it ?

Special "historical nodes" could be the keeper of that history.

so it'll run separate node, and the main chain just for transaction(transfer) then "historical nodes" will record it ?

[Taras]

I have a question, say a miner figures out that a transaction was fraudulent yet it has been fully confirmed.  Could that miner alter that transaction in the future to reflect his view of reality and would other miners have the choice to accept his edit?

This happened once seven years ago. When the bad transaction was discovered everyone started over from the block before it was confirmed, and so that bad transaction no longer exists.

[Colorblind]

Ok tell me what you guys think about this:

Let us say a coin's blockchain is ridiculously huge or will be. Can the protocol have an implementation where some predetermined block will be the genesis block of a brand new blockchain?

Like say that for every 1,000,000 blocks, for example, the miners put all new trannies on hold for just a sec, then gather all the existing unspent outputs in the entire blockchain together and mine a humongous genesis block for a brand new blockchain. After that they keep mining blocks like normal on the new blockchain. You don't need the old blockchain anymore, you can just throw it away.

This would be impossible without also implementing coins ageing. If what you propose implemented I wouldn't be able to spend coins dated before the point where you decided to cut block chain (because proof of those coins being spendable will cease to exist). I.e. what you say could be possible if after cetrain number of blocks coins that were unspent before automatically moved to coinbase. That would also effectively return forever lost coins to the coinbase, eliminate Satoshi's stash and upset a lot of long-term hodlers, who for some reason was ignorant of this implementation.

[Anti-Cen]

Bitcoin evolved from "everybody must be able to run the node" to a competition driven by economy.

The BTC block-chain now comes in at 200gb in size and the ball has only just stated rolling

That's a big number in any database or file system folders and remember we have only just stated.

To process a transaction to see if a wallet has the money to spend you have to trace each part of
a coin back down the chain to the date it was originally mined so you cannot just jump to the top of the
data and need to pull data from all over the place, leafs in a database or ledgers on the file system.

Unless "everyone" has an I7 machine running 16gb or ram and large fast disk drives then we are already past
"Everyone" and you want to see what happens to a database than has an index on a field and the index won't
fit into ram and it keeps getting paged in and out of memory because this is where we are going and believe me it's slow.

We been sold a duff one, hope your starting to see it and want to be part of the solution like I do.

[ranochigo]

and with the idea like this, you can't see your transaction history from years ago isn't it ?

Special "historical nodes" could be the keeper of that history.

As said, you've eliminated the trustless aspect of Bitcoin if you do implement this. You need to be able to link each of the transactions into blocks which have generated the coins. Else, it won't be as difficult for attackers to create coins out of thin air.

Who is going to be the "historical node" when storing the entire copy of the Blockchain? Big corporations? How are you going to count on them as it gets centralised and trust them? How difficult would it to attack those limited number of nodes?