I wasn't talking about parallel blockchains. I was talking about totally distinct blockchains.
What's the functional difference?
I see now. I was talking about distinct blockchains where checkpoints of slave chains r written into the master chain.
I'm going to have to spend some time pondering this. I do not, atleast immediately, understand how such a thing would work. Would this be similar to emu blocktrees? I never have been able to understand that either.
I don't know how eMu works.
Imagine master blockchain (MASTER) and 2 slave chains - for payments and for storage - (PAYMENTS and STORAGE).
If a forger can't handle so much traffic, he could choose only MASTER + PAYMENTS only.
This is the sketch of the idea.
The more i think about these ideas the more i am reminded of the advantages of the devision of labor in a market economy. Since blockchains are so limited in general in scalability it is probably best to have an entirely distinct blockchain for each intended use. Now that never would have been the case with proof of work, because of the reasons mentioned earlier about chains competing for security resources, but with proof of stake it becomes practical. And of course it could be one client to access all of the totally distinct blockchains. Master and slave is really useful in pow, but with pos i think it may just be needlessly restrictive.
*edit* its should be noted that im not at all confident that i am right about this, just thinking out loud
*edit2* with that being said, master and slave is still definitely better than cramming transactions and storage on the same chain.
