If we manage the system to be painless we can refresh the chain every 10 or 20 years...
Let me put this more clear to you:
Genesis block matches a specific current block without inputs or outputs, just the same header in a way its hash is the same, zero padded to match block size.
Blocks 2...14 "generate" the coins on this second chain, copying the headers of the previous chain mined block, zero padded (means some hash too).
Blocks 14 to x will output from the previous step generated coins to the last know address where they're at at the old chain, checking also if those coins moved at the old chain to make changes accordingly. Here can be tricky as the block length has to match the current chain, but we can create a special field after the nonce for these blocks to reset its size counter...
At the end you'll have the same chain, at the customer side if you've 100 coins at public key address 1Axyz you now have the very same 100 coins assigned to the very same private key. As if nothing happened.
The difference, this "fresh chain" will weight only a couple of Gb while the old one will be too heavy to drag around.
Put to dead archive isn't anything new, it's what banks do with transactions. They don't keep your 1992 withdraw history in their live servers...
Topic: An idea for 2021: Dual-chain (Read 329 times)
1. you will not have more bitcoins on the market, they're all assigned to the addresses where they are already.
2. it duplicates the data for a while, it's true, but the new chain will be lighter.
3. no, does the same, just adds the input at #2.
4. meaningless...
The rest, even more meaningless... I think you understood this second chain was meant to create more coins.
The idea is to pass the current chain to "dead archive" and set a fresh one. So you wouldn't need to download 500 Gb+ of data due to blockchain oversize.
2. it duplicates the data for a while, it's true, but the new chain will be lighter.
3. no, does the same, just adds the input at #2.
4. meaningless...
The rest, even more meaningless... I think you understood this second chain was meant to create more coins.
The idea is to pass the current chain to "dead archive" and set a fresh one. So you wouldn't need to download 500 Gb+ of data due to blockchain oversize.
oh i see.. or you can just go play with blockstreams "liquid" which is pegged at bitcoins price but doesnt have a chain at all.. (note of sarcasm)
i have years ago already thought about a bit of code that has
"Vout" : [{ "Bvalue" : 50.00000000, "Zvalue" : 124.002, "addresses" : [ "1goddamlongaddresses" ]}]
simply creating the most leanest possible way of creating 2 coins on one chain..
but it still ruins things. and bitcoin will be around well after 2140.. and so introducing a second coin in 2021 will have 119 years of history, even if you prune off bitcoin only data..
1. you will not have more bitcoins on the market, they're all assigned to the addresses where they are already.
2. it duplicates the data for a while, it's true, but the new chain will be lighter.
3. no, does the same, just adds the input at #2.
4. meaningless...
The rest, even more meaningless... I think you understood this second chain was meant to create more coins.
The idea is to pass the current chain to "dead archive" and set a fresh one. So you wouldn't need to download 500 Gb+ of data due to blockchain oversize.
2. it duplicates the data for a while, it's true, but the new chain will be lighter.
3. no, does the same, just adds the input at #2.
4. meaningless...
The rest, even more meaningless... I think you understood this second chain was meant to create more coins.
The idea is to pass the current chain to "dead archive" and set a fresh one. So you wouldn't need to download 500 Gb+ of data due to blockchain oversize.
nope,
for many reasons
1. it destroys rarity to suddenly have more units available on a single payment system
2. it adds more data per transaction
3. it requires more computation to check, validate and mine
4. bitcoin can divide to 8 decimals..
so you might think there are only 21million bitcoins.. but infact there are:
2,100,000,000,000,000 sats.. yep 2.1quadrilion sats.. more than enough to hand around without changing a thing
for many reasons
1. it destroys rarity to suddenly have more units available on a single payment system
2. it adds more data per transaction
3. it requires more computation to check, validate and mine
4. bitcoin can divide to 8 decimals..
so you might think there are only 21million bitcoins.. but infact there are:
2,100,000,000,000,000 sats.. yep 2.1quadrilion sats.. more than enough to hand around without changing a thing
This is still way sketchy on my head, but an idea to slim down the blockchain, once all coins were created, could be to create a secondary chain, making it go on dual chain for a while, dropping the heaviest after some time.
This secondary chain would start with 1000 reserved blocks that would consist on a pre-mine of the 21 million BTC and distribution of those coins by the existing addresses with positive balance. During a while any change at one chain would reflect at the other, until it seams to be no longer need for keep the old one.
This secondary chain would start with 1000 reserved blocks that would consist on a pre-mine of the 21 million BTC and distribution of those coins by the existing addresses with positive balance. During a while any change at one chain would reflect at the other, until it seams to be no longer need for keep the old one.
Jump to: