Topic: A decentralized (multilayered) blockchain. Is it ever possible? (Read 1883 times)

Ya I know and that's a sad reality. We are infighting with each other, and each one trying to prove his point, but if only they understood that they need to be United and it's my belief that the day the community is United, miracles will happen, what seemed impossible will be possible but then that's a long time, but I am positive it shall happen, problem is some fools spread rumors and then sit back while everyone bickers. Let's hope something works out in future soon.

It is hardly going to happen any time soon

Some altcoins might be aiming at that specifically, and some dudes are even claiming that they have designed something to that tune already. But they have been claiming that for years, though nothing of substance has come out of it so far, to be honest. In respect to Bitcoin specifically, developer folks seem to be more busy with intriguing against each other than trying to work as a solid team. At least, that's the impression you get by reading flame wars raging here and elsewhere in the Internet as well as seeing the labors with which the updates to Bitcoin, long due and overdue, take to get activated (e.g. SegWit)

I think you have a valid point here. Most of the users might not agreed to this view, but I feel that a decentralised blockchain would be a good idea cause the transactions are bound to multifold over the years. And it's about time some planning is done. Would love to see this happen soon.

  ;Dgood

i read it and i can see the theories you are trying to establish.. but i think you need to do a bit more research.
i can see atleast 3 issues which can easily pull apart your debate.

here is a hint about one of them.
the cost to mining pools, you debate about the fee:reward ratio.. but your forgetting another HUGE metric that causes your theory to fall flat.

It is definitely not possible to have decentralization with proof-of-work (nor proof-of-stake):

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16968966

So the people who claim it is not possible, start with a set of presumptions which prevent them seeing how it could be accomplished.

---

Incorrect:

What February do you refer to exactly?


Okay, I will closely watch your thread provided the February you mentioned above is in not too distant future. Regarding whether it is possible to do, some people claim that it is not possible at all but I have a gut feeling that it is, just like the public-key cryptography is considered impossible by those who are not quite familiar with that. Namely, that you can encrypt a message with a publicly available key, and no one will be able to decrypt it...

Unless they have a private key, of course

My white paper will be the best resource for convincing you. I hope to publish it along with a testnet February-ish.

Yes it is possible. But all the prior thinking about how to do it, has been wrong.

Note I am not hyping anything, because I am not asking for any money until after the white paper and testnet are published.

I am just giving you a heads up, that if you don't want to miss your chance to have obtained Bitcoin when it was only pennies per BTC, then you should be watching very carefully what I am doing. Of course be skeptical and make sure you read the white paper carefully.

Sorry I am not going to tell you my secrets before I am at the testnet phase. Too many copycoins would steal my ideas if I did that. It will all be open source after testnet.

young grass hopper
a bonzai tree may only grow 2foot. and so would require a forrest of bonzai to feed all the leaf cutter ants onroute.
but a 300ft redwood is stronger than a forrest of separate bonzai and can feed all the ants. as long as you let the redwood tree grow.

the problem is not that bitcoin cant scale.. its that bitcoin is being prevented from scaling by.. HUMANS, especially those in the pockets of bankers
bitcoin doesnt need to be XXXmb tomorrow.. it can SCALE naturally and DYNAMICALLY as time passes over the next 120 years.

the funny part is
holding back scaling, while then crying bitcoin needs to go sideways because it cant scale.. is like a self fulfilling prophecy

you prophecize that tomorrow you wont be able to walk on both feet.. because you shot yourself in the foot the night before.

bitcoin is very inefficient.
but bitcoin's efficiency isn't what makes it special
we put up with its inefficient design because this design give us the properties we want.
bottom line is we are more then willing to trade off efficiency for decentralization, we dont care if it makes CPU's sweat a little.


the real question here is what level of decentralization is nessary or desirable... and dose this target move as bitcoin scales up?
imagine we are at "this level" with the  current blockchain paradigm.
in this scenario bitcoin has "taken over"... so who are the nodes?
at that point nodes are ran by governments of the world, corporations and other larger entities.
no one government or corporation is in control... where's the central authority? where's the problem?
i dont see it.
as long as there is no central authority capable of censoring TX or issuing new bitcoins. there is no problem.
and also users have a strong element of control over the system without having to run a node at all, but by CHOOSING the crypto they TX in.

here's the real real question:

is centralizing the use of blockchain an acceptable trade off to maintain maximal node distribution?
are we willing to centralize on chain usage to large entities so that individual user can continue to run nodes?
Or
are we willing to centralize node distribution to large entities so that individual user can continue to use blockchain?

I never questioned that, apart from Bitcoin mining being centralized by the Chinese miners. But this is neither a secret nor a topic of this thread. Moreover, I specifically distinguished between Bitcoin centralization and Blockchain centralization. And yet more, I even suggested to use the term "flat blockchain" instead of "blockchain centralization", since a lot of people got agitated about me allegedly misusing the term (though I don't think I really am), but they couldn't come up with a suitable alternative for this term, alas...

So what do you think about that term, "flat blockchain"?


In fact, I'm not coming up with anything since I lack proper technical background in this respect. I just say that the current "flat blockchain" cannot get scaled up efficiently and effectively

as others have said bitcoin is decentralized..
i feel the idea your trying to convey as an issue is:
"blockdata diversity"

your complaint is everyone has the same blockdata.

even if that data is distributed / decentralized. (no single location of attack).. by everyone having the same data the data is not diverse.

i know what you are trying to get at.
where your thinking that blockchains should work as sidechains.. where each sidechain is like a bankbranch with its own cluster of customers and keeps it own records.

meaning blockchain FARGO shows blocks of transactions of americans.
meaning blockchain EURO shows blocks of transactions of europeans.
meaning blockchain HSBC shows blocks of transactions of easterners.

all linked together by a gatekeeper blockchain IMF

rather than
easterners hold and uses blockchain B.
europeans hold and uses blockchain B.
americans hold and uses blockchain B.

to answer your topic question.. yes it is possible to do sidechains.
but then the issue becomes who are the gate keepers. who created the genesis block of each sidechain.
whats securing it.

lastly. instead of say 130,000 ASICS protecting bitcoin with 440,000 hashes that need to be hacked just to be able to steal satoshi's stash...

imagine people moved funds over to sidechain LQD which is secured by only 12 people in a multi-signing POS hub.. you are sacrificing alot of security measures for their LQD features.

so although possible you need to realise what your losing, what headaches it may cause and what advantage you are gaining.

LN is sacrificing autonomy and replacing it with permissioned payments (dual signed authorisation)
side-chains opens a huge kettle of worms.

To be honest, I think that the term "blockchain centralization" makes perfect sense. This is not the same as Bitcoin centralization as many erroneously might think, the process which we all have been witnessing for the last couple of years. Nevertheless, what about "flat blockchain" then?

Should I trademark the term?


This is not even a solution, I'd rather call a workaround


In fact, when I referred to scalability issues I meant the exponential growth of the number of transactions processed per unit of time. If Bitcoin is ever to become adopted on a world scale (this is an assumption only, not an assertion, for those who have difficulty in distinguishing between moods), the Bitcoin network should be able to process many orders more transactions than it is processing now. Probably on the scale of thousand transactions per second...

I don't think that the current blockchain paradigm (that of unique flat blockchain) could ever get scaled up to this level

No, I would have proposed one if I'd have had...


I feel like the transaction issues can be better solved by the wallet itself. The wallet can calculate the size of the transaction, check on how busy the network is and propose a couple options for the fee.
If the sender finds the fee too big for the expected time, he can just wait for a better moment.


I agree that Bitcoin has issues that have to be solved, but I feel like your proposal of splitted-up blockchain will create more problems and will not really solve any (the size on the HDD and the initial sync bandwidth are not real problems I'd say).

Do you have a better term?


The main issue that Bitcoin faces is that it is pretty much stuck in its current incarnation. Let's face the facts, Bitcoin is not scalable in any relevant degree. We already had a few occurrences when thousands of Bitcoin transactions had not been confirmed by miners on time. That may actually has little to do with the block sizes as many think, but this still doesn't miraculously resolve that issue itself...

And this may be just a writing on the wall


This is not a solution to the main problem. i.e. Bitcoin scalability issues, or the lack of scalability

Although the wording is terrible, I understood the point.
However, I feel like everybody having a copy of the blockchain is the key for Bitcoin safety. (Or, for better wording, let's say "as many as possible" instead of "everybody").
I may be wrong, but if one doesn't have the full blockchain, the wallet will have to either work like a SPV wallet (which is claimed to be less secure) either "ask around" for the missing info - but I see that even more like an overhead.

I still think that is keeping the full chain is an issue for somebody, that somebody should start using light wallets. There's no better option.

Could you please try to explain in greater detail what you meant to say

The word "trustless" has been used twice in this topic and both times in your post (yes, I checked). To be honest, I couldn't make anything out of your post. Regarding open-source trust vs people based trust (probably, the only thing that I got somewhat in this post), if you are not a very experienced developer yourself in exactly that field where your trust might matter, it still invariably comes down to trusting people who are more experienced than you. In other words, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other

I don’t think we should use the frame of mind that something can be “trustless”. Provable is a good replacement word. All we’re doing is replacing people based trust with open-source trust, and because of that, I would argue that there is more trust. Also people who aren’t technologists don’t understand the word “trustless” because they don’t know how this technology works  when combined with social and political institutions, has real possibilities for the future of organisation of the commons.

I've been hearing about you working on a new Bitcoin killer coin for a few years already. Actually, since I had registered here in the fall of 2013. Could you please explain the concept of it in a few words? I mean that part which allows blocks "sharding" (if I use the correct term) as opposed to what the Bitcoin blockchain does. I don't need technical details, just the basic idea. Some here say that it is impossible to do but I don't feel inclined to unreservedly trust their words...

Will your coin ever come to fruition?


I guess none of these fully comprehends the idea of only one authentic dataset existing across the network, which the Bitcoin blockchain typifies

I already have the correct design and am working on implementing it:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16967822

The flaws in the current two best contenders (Satoshi's proof-of-work and Bitshares' DPoS) are insoluble:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16957687