Topic: A new blockchainless cryptocollectible network (Read 151 times)

I see what you mean by "making their own copy" now I didn't think you were referring to it as literally creating your own independent chain. I doubt this would become a reality when people are known to follow a crowd and follow each other. They would pick their favorite versions of the chain rather than creating their own independent chains. Agreed that this proposal is not a solution and only causes problems.

1. its blockchainless thus less security of the data held within
2. if the goal is to move away from hashmining, you wont get it, you will still end up in a warehouse of machine scenario competition
3. if everyone is making their own copy of something thats not a blockchain but say a account balance(much lik a UTXO set. thats like gigabytes being sent every certain few minutes to everyone. thus not practical
4. the reason bitcoins consensus works but this topic would fail is bitcoin has a first seen, first valid=win. where the first seen part is not everyone just broadcasting at the same time, but a complex math hashing game to spread the competitors apart so that they are not all broadcasting at the same time.
5. there are many many fundemental things missing in this topics thought process that leads me to believe the topic creator truly has not gone deep into depths of what makes bitcoin/blockchain so profoundly superior to traditional distributed databases

again its only practical in a confined network where all the peers are already in an agreement, but it wont work as a wide public network of adversaries

I invested my life savings in Bitcoin. wish me luck
lisseur ghd

This system is not necessarily that bad because you will always have multiple people competing and it should balance it out especially when most people want whats best for Bitcoin and will reach a consensus on what ledger/blockchain to use. Bitcoin already uses a similar system in Bitcoin mining where theoretically a person could own the majority of the computing force and force transactions to not be confirmed and try and sway the Bitcoin members in their favor.

research sybil attack

imagine 100 nodes making 100 different ledgers. they all have a trust of 1/100. meaning no obvious majority.
imagine 1 guy then runs 100 nodes(giving himself the 'trusted masterkey') that all then follow one ledger.
that 1 guy has 100/200 trust, and everyone else only has 1/200.
that one guy now owns the network

what then occurs is people all start trying to run multiple instances by repeating what that on guy did, to try out competing him and take control away ..and after years of competing, people end up having thousands of systems per user trying to fight competition

in short your not solving the hash competition. instead your creating an old problem block hashing solved

in my view people avoiding blockchains are going backwards/de-innovating. its like bringing back cpu mining all over again but without the immutable ledger, as new trust winners can change anything

your trust model only has promise in private networks where the peers are already in relationships thus no need to compete/harm each other

There are different types of digital goods; currencies, collectibles, assets, and commodities. https://www.naturehacker.org/2017/12/the-future-is-digital-property-dp.html?m=1

This idea is using the collectible model but can also be done with a cryptocurrency as well.  The idea is simply that you have trusted nodes.  Instead of de-facto trusting the person that won the block in a typical blockchain, you would trust the majority of trusted nodes.  The problem with this method is convergence and therefore fungibility.  How could we force all trusted nodes to report the same ledger or accounting?  Well I believe we don't need to.  How do we force every witness to give the same testimony in a court case?  We don't.  But we also choose who we believe.  My idea is to let the trusted nodes be free to choose whatever version of history they want.  In this freedom, nodes will want to have consensus so that they stay trusted by people.  Why? Because the end users will also have a choice of what trusted nodes to use.  So nodes will have in their best interest to provide the most accurate accounting possible so their accounting is fully fungible.  I think in this experiment we would see all trustednodes quickly converge to the same answer, much like how a jury converges on a verdict.

Unfortunately this system might not allow a newcomer to become a trusted node in a cryptocollectible model.  They will have to aquire a trusted node masterkey (assumedly by trading for it) in order to become a trusted node.  In a cryptocurrency model it may be possible to allow someone to stake coins to achieve trustednode status, similarly to a masternode.

These trusted nodes will listen to the network and determine thier best accounting of what happened and attempt to verify their findings with their trustednode peers.  Each trusted node would likely poll all other trusted nodes to see if their version of history is accurate, and if not, likely converge to the majority opinion.  Of course if something major comes up the software can alert the human operator and the human could use forums or whatnot to speak to other human trusted node operators to see where a large discrepancy arose. We don't need to totally obsolete humans .

In light of the news of china requiring facial recognition to access the internet, I designed something called Y Space that uses a method above as it's Ypay component.  I am not coding Y space, but if someone wants to make it a reality I would be grateful.  Y space is digital safe space for privacy.
https://www.naturehacker.org/2019/10/y-space-breakaway-digital-space.html?m=1