Doesn’t the blockchain require hashes to look a certain way? ie so many zeros at the start.
Not exactly, but yes the hash is insufficient unless it exceeds a specific difficulty. This difficulty serves a very specific need and purpose.
The validation chain would remove this.
Then why bother hashing at all? What is the difference between storing a list of unconfirmed transactions, and storing a list of hashed unconfirmed transactions?
As hashing is very simple and quick the bottle neck I hope would be the latency in the network. Thus I am proposing a global chain as like the blockchain and the first peer to receive x transactions will get to post a block of the transactions.
How will you know which peer is "first"?
The longest chain is accepted and distributed
If the hashes don't need to meet a particular difficulty, then how will you prevent anyone from creating an alternative longer chain?
the chain should then be dictated base on location.
Location? How will the system know where any peer is located?
As for no incentive well it shouldn’t require large amounts of power than just running the client. I would hope that the tiny bit more used would help hopefully increase the networks security.
Please understand that when creating a monetary system you MUCH assume that EVERY peer is going to act in a dishonest way if it will benefit them. Please explain how this additional chain with no difficulty monetizes the desired behavior and discourages the undesired behavior.
Ok as for the double spend it probably doesn’t solve this
Then what is its purpose? You said that this is a "solution to 51% attack". The problem with the "51% attack" is that it allows the person that has 51% of the hash power to double-spend their own transactions. If your "solution" doesn't prevent this, then how is it a solution to anything at all?
but it should be cheaper to create the validation chain and so when that last block has been mined it could be possible to just rely on the validation chain.
There is no "last block". As long as bitcoin exists, blocks will continue to be created. If the "validation chain" doesn't prevent double-spends, then it doesn't serve any purpose at all and can't be relied on for anything.
As for miners knowing which transactions to use this would be a bit harder more of a gamble
A gamble? I don't think a monetary system should be based on a successful gamble.
but the older the transaction the safer it should be i.e. wait for the average round trip latency of the network.
It is impossible to know the age of a transaction. Transactions don't have timestamps. The blockchain is the "timeserver" that determines the order that transactions occur.
