What if instead of storing transactions in the blockchain we stored hashes of transactions and the owner of the coins stored the record of transaction history associates with those coins instead of the blockchain. Then the recipient could just check the transaction record against the blockchain to verify that the coins had not been double-spent.
So the record in the blockchain would have a couple of parts. it would need to record a signature for the address of each input to insure that you didnt use the same inputs for two different transactions and it would need to have a hash of the transaction so the recipient would know that it was payed to him instead of someone else.
One concern i think would be the question of fungibility since some coins would require more hard drive space to store than others but i was thinking that you would only need to reference previous transactions far enough back that the total spent on transaction fees exceeded the balance being payed with some allowances for the fact that the producer could be a big shot miner or stake holder or insert similar proof scheme here. Meaning that yea some coins would be more desirable than others but only to a point and the storage requirements would never get too out of hand.
So then my final questions would be: Is this possible? if so would it actually save space in the blockchain? if so how much?
This would completely centralize the whole system, defeating the point ^^
how so? Its just the same as bitcoin except instead of forcing everyone in the world to store your transactions, YOU store your transactions. The blockchain would still be just as decentralized and if im imagining it correctly than the people who store their transaction histories wouldnt have any way to cheat the system.
