Topic: I will create a forked bitcoin chain (Read 6929 times)

I think LTC tries to address this by using script hash instead of SHA

thanks

See my original post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179961.msg1879143;topicseen#msg1879143
It explains more of the motivation and philosphy behind the concept. Not the technical solutions.

I started this thread here to get some opinions on the technical aspects - and I think many of the above replies raises interesting and relevant topics.
If you like my philosophy, I would be happy to discuss more with you. All intelligible contributions are highly appreciated

PS: Would not the appearance of ASICS be handled easily by the increased difficulty adjustment? Yes, they may come to dominate, but does that pose a problem for the system as such?

Can you develop a genetic proof of work that changes over time to prevent ASICs from dominating the ecosystem? Also how will you address transaction fees and the notion of colored coins? Are you writing a whitepaper like satoshi did to explain some things? I would be willing to help write code for you if we are philosophically aligned

Point taken. You've posted pretty darn intelligently on this subject. Would "rolling-up" all a new LinearCoin user's address into a single new address be any better?

Personally, I think that would be even less popular.
Even if I changed the rules to wave that potential transaction fee, it would affect transaction privacy ON BOTH networks. Creating Etlase2's "Open TX Only" approach would avoid accidental transactions, but it wouldn't change the privacy issues.

That's a shame. I wanted to do that automatic roll-up block work and and donate it back to BitCoin. It's on the future features list.

This is sounding like a dumber and dumber idea. Amazing how hard it is to give out FREE COINS! :-)

------------------

Again, if I undertake this it is just for the practical experience of working with the codebase. I don't really think the LinearCoin philosophy is logically any better than BitCoin's. After all for most of the time I've been watching BitCoin it has been a LinearCoin system. It wasn't till late last year that the mining rate dropped. In fact, for the next couple of years BitCoin will continue to be a LinearCoin system. And the 4 years after that, and after that...

Giving away coins linearly didn't stop the repeated Bubble and Bust cycle over the first 4 years. In that regard things haven't changed in the second 4 years. Isn't that what makes Coin speculation fun for so many people?

This is so silly. Bitcoin isn't going to accept LNC transactions as long as the addresses are incompatible. If the addresses are compatible, no one should touch the software because the designer is brain-dead.

I'm sure they would, but it wouldn't be a real test.

There's no difference between an address created using Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind versus inflatacoin LinearCoin.  So me sending to my own address is a transaction valid on both chains.  

So the private keys in my LinearCoin client would be as valuable to an attacker as my Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind wallet.dat.

I personally am not a thrill seeker who jumps off bridges tethered by a bungee nor does playing Russian roulette appeal to me.  Trying to use LineaCoin without losing my bitcoins seems like an equal challenge.

Newly created address will be different from the other chain. However, since LinearCoin will copy BitCoin's database of addresses. The same wallet (public keys) you use for BitCoin will also work for your LinearCoin "free-premine".

EDIT: NO, your coins will not be able to be STOLEN under any circumstance. The necessary LinearCoin client would warn you about your pre-fork coins. The easy solution is to just send your coins to yourself. This will push them past the fork on the LinearCoin chain. At worst, someone could copy that transaction and re-submit it to the BitCoin network. That would have the effect of sending your coins to yourself there as well. The BitCoin move will not be automatic. Moving BitCoins effects your "Coin Age". Some may not want that.

I think it is only fair to call this bootstrapping method a "pre-mine". Some people get coins before the p2p network even launches. Those people are current BitCoin holders.

HOWEVER, there is NO ADDITIONAL pre-mine by wingding or I should I choose to help him. I would be doing this purely for the technical experience of creating an alt-coin. I don't want to speak for wingding. He has already made his philosophical reasons known elsewhere.

FULL DISCLOSURE, I am not a BitCoin holder.
I do not know if wingding is a BitCoin holder.

I have made my reluctance to purchase bitcoins known elsewhere as well. However, if you read my old posts you will see that I have a long history on this site. I am also a 100% supporter of BitCoin's use in making ANONYMOUS purchases over the internet possible. That is why I (might) undertake this project.

so bitcoins moved on the fork, can be stolen on the original blockchain?

I don't get how do you create an address that is identical on the other blockchain

No I am not skilled in C++. I welcome any initiative taken to test the concept.

@wingding, Have you started trying to build the code? Are you a software developer?

I'm guessing the BitCoin developers would suggest the TestNet for that...

I agree that makes more sense long term operation. The first solution "seems" easier only as a first step towards your proposal.

Thanks for the thoughtful response Stephen. That makes perfect sense.

All bitcoins produced before the fork will be duplicated into the new chain. So all the coins held by mtgox at fork-time will be held by mtgox also in the new chain. Mtgox should keep track of who owns these coins at fork-time, so they can transfer them to their legitimate owners.

so my bitcoins held at mtgox will not be in that fork, correct? I would have to move them before the fork to bitcoin-qt?

You solves nothing with inflation,..., useless bits.

It should be, adjust money supply in reference of transaction-user ratio,..., deterministic mining has no capacity of regulate different scenarios.

we already have an alternative blockchain. Its called bytecoin. Sorry but its questionable whether there is room in the market for 2 bitcoins there is no question in my mind about whether there is room for 3

A forked chain just for the purpose of testing Bitcoin's resiliency to forks would be interesting and possibly useful.  If somebody who had a quantity of coins on the original Bitcoin chain and a significant bit of hashing power started running a modified client, and convinced a few others to join, and conducted some transactions on the forked chain for awhile, it would be interesting to see what it did to the main network and if it reveals anything that needs to be done to make Bitcoin resilient to this as a form of attack.