Topic: Proposal to add "trustee" escrow-layer larger ledger blockchain to save bitcoin. (Read 507 times)

i know your pre-empting an announcement of an altcoin called core+ where people hand you(and friends of yours) real bitcoin and they then get given core+ coins to play with on your altcoin..
but thats been tried before.

much simpler to understand is to learn multisig/escrows that have been available on bitcoin for years. once you understand that, your 90% at understanding Lightning network.

which isnt about altcoins or trusting a 'trustee' but instead just putting funds into a 2of2 multisig. and then in private communications agree on who owes who as you spend between each other

at a later date when a final agreement amount on who owes who what allows you and other person to sign the funds and then transmit it to bitcoins public blockchain

EG you set up a multisig with starbucks and put in $60 of btc into it . then privately offchain when you buy coffee you agree you only want $56 back for a $4 purchase.(you both sign but dont transmit). next day you agree you only want $52 back for another $4 purchase.(you both sign but dont transmit). after 2 weeks you agree to sign all of the $60 to starbucks.(you both sign this time you do transmit).

and the only thing that shows up on bitcoins network is the $60 in from you to a multisig 2 weeks ago. and $60 out of the multisig to starbucks (non of the 2 weeks of purchases in the middle)..

Feel like I need to change what I said. This could be an opportunity for exploitation, so it would be best to have the bitcoins almost-permanently attached to the new larger network. I say "almost-permanently" because it is can be possible to reverse if all the original larger ledger coins are consecrated back to the original trustee. If this is a real day scenario it would be very difficult to return, but for a test scenario its very possible. This would allow for a semi-test layer among bitcoin programmers to test this ledger in house but still live on the network.

of course the question that might arise from this would be:
"If these bitcoins cannot be returned to actual use in the network, then why would anyone want to participate?"

because they would be able to collect transaction fees on both the original network and larger ledger network. In effect, they are burning bitcoin (really harsh way of looking at it) in order to invest in a higher speed network. This makes everyone elses bitcoin worth more if they fail, but if they succeed in making a faster network, the investment will prove profitable to sustain the expenses of the node.

actually there is. Because the internet isn't the same globally. Right now bitcoin is operating on very low standard, which is a standard we should keep (like talking a certain speed or way with an elder), however in places were people like us who have a fast internet connection, larger hard drives and an excess of bitcoin, we can create a new network by putting those bitcoins into a sort of trust in order to collect transaction fees (on the original network), and participate in a faster network suitable for high frequency transactions.
its far too complex, and confusing to following where the money goes. its not simple in principle, and the risk is upon the network itself rather than those who desire a faster network.
People need to be willing to invest in an idea they wish to stand behind. They shouldn't put everyone else in risk, or force people to take risk just because their interests are "more important" than the others. That's why having two networks with a bridge is a concept that should be looked at more closely. It will give the users the speed they need, but the bridge back to the original untarnished principle, therefore security and tradition.

if another network can be created using blockchain that is larger .. then obviously there is no 'internet' issues with bitcoin just being larger.

anyway it might be worth you reading about lightening networks and multisigs (no need of blockchains at all) you will soon catch up with the latest idea's that are coming to fruition

thats called a hardfork, akin to hardforking your mother to a retirement home. the point of this proposal is to avoid a hardfork.

you wouldn't be throwing your funds to one person. its those who are willing to be part of the core+ network who put their bitcoin funds in escrow (for those viewing the ledger on the original network) while also simultaneously being the new currency they use on the core+, and thus part of a larger ledger.

this keeps everything in check. in other words. a larger faster network creating more and larger blocks can still operate with the authenticity of the value being confirmed on the original ledger.

1. the going larger wont affect the network. because unlike those who are trying to scare the community with reasons to not grow the network at all.. the growth does not need to be gigabytes by midnight neither.

nodes set the rules.
knowing node can cope with 8mb a block. we could have 8mb capable.. but 4mb preferable a block this year for extra safety. and then reassess the status every year and grow dynamically based on what the node CAN cope with and prefer naturally..

2. LN is a side service which is less managerial then the OP's idea but allows extra functionality for those that need it. though its not permissionless like onchain bitcoin is its still better than the OP's throw all your funds at one person and hope that person throws them back

Hello,

Recently I've been reading "Book of Satoshi" and when I came upon Satoshi's post on August 11, 2010 (page 274), he states:
When I read this I saw two messages. The first was he humbled himself, in other words, he spoke in a way which showed he was for expansion. However to this day and with Satoshi absent, many bitcoin developers are taking his word literally, attaining that this means we need to increase the block size. We all know why we don't want to do so (the little guy can't be a part of the network), which is why lately the price of bitcoin has been going up and down.
The second message I saw was that he never actually clarifies what "it" means; in other words, he never uses "blk*.dat" in the place of where "it" would go.
This got me thinking, what if this mean we should make a secondary large scale network with larger blocks that works on top of the original untouched bitcoin network?

Moving on to the proposal
(This has many different variables so please bare with me all the parts which support the whole)

First, I think the value in bitcoin is in the fact that anyone can be a part of the network. The fact that the blockchain can fit on a 256GB drive means that anyone with such a HD capacity and internet access can do just this. But the issue with keeping the blockchain small and the frequency of new blocks (every 10 minutes), means there are huge delays in transactions which prevents the usefulness and widespread use of bitcoin (or so I hear). Which is why I propose a "trustee" system in which people with a certain amount of bitcoins can participate in a larger higher frequency network, by putting their bitcoin up as "credit" and "trust" while also writing to a 2nd ledger that will update, say, every minute instead.

All these transactions will then be written to the main blockchain in the same format of a regular transaction but highlighted with the larger ledger link, so that in effect we're simply compressing transactions into the original blockchain which operates on a slower, but more reliable scale.

I can imagine all sorts of questions arising from this such as, "what if one wants to use/remove said bitcoins put up in the trustee/escrow system?"

Well from then one will select an option in the program to send these bitcoins to another account and this would take time as all the current list of transactions would have to be finalized into the larger ledger before the bitcoins in the credit system are sent to this address. From here on the user is can just store incoming larger ledger but not make new blocks.

In essence, partaking in this larger network means you are actively using a private key on behalf of a larger group of people with your "trust bitcoins" as the leverage, in order to be the bridge between a larger, faster and slightly higher fee'd network and the original, slow but very reliable and accessible-to-all network (both need to exist for balance).

Second, make the transaction fee through the speedier network more than the minimum transaction fee of the bitcoin core network, so that those who share and update this larger ledger, can pay the original transaction, and for the larger hd space and faster internet access.

Now the issue right now is finding the right numbers for this, but I believe there are a lot of financial gurus out there who can calculate a general and generous (as in to the people who use the network) system of how many transactions get consecrated into a single transaction for how many bitcoins were passed for the bitcoins put up as credit. but this needs to be watched over with a very careful eye. All the variables need to be discovered for a global representation, and from before this message was spread, (because based on morphic resonance, the very moment something is expressed or shared or learned or grown, the effects upon the world become apparent-not obvious though-and price changes can occur which can result in less precise variables)

i haven't made up a list of variables yet but from the top of my head it would be pricing of all electrical components, internet population, average bitcoin size of wallets.. etc, previous variables of the bitcoin.. all these would have to be considered by the users of bitcoin. and above all the original network must be prioritized to save (like an elder family member you hold respect to and still care for).

work with me here I'm trying to start a discussion, a little bit like Satoshi, I'm just very inexperienced with the details but I'm willing to answer any questions and will to brainstorm alternative ideas.
I feel like people have to have an idea of what they want to work out before we can actually get into the coding.


Taking a zoom out here:

I feel like we need to grow bitcoin but we mustn't be hasty with hardforks. In fact, I am largely against hardforks because it automatically leads to an loss of trust (as we saw with ethereum). Its also the means in which a greedy entity "steals" or "usurps" whether from principle or by involving undiscovered "loopholes" in order to take control aka destroy the system. Just look at the sega dreamcast and the original xbox 360 side by side. It becomes apparent there was a theft of principle the very moment you notice the "compatible with windows CE" on the dreamcast. the xbox 360's concave shape practically fits on top of the dreamcast's convex shape. Its just bigger., colors used are identical... etc.

so this method means that anyone who is willing to wait on the original network transaction time (and actually less after more intensive transactions operate on the larger ledger network) can still use bitcoin, however those who need it for commerce, must "invest" or "put up" their bitcoins to be able to write to a larger ledger, allowing (finally) some fees to go to these nodes.

software wise I'm thinking bitcoin core, and bitcoin core+, which means bitcoin core+ will be able to do 2 things and a 3rd additional thing after putting bitcoins in "escrow."
the first two things are bitcoin core+ does everything bitcoin core does (like hold the original blockchain, send/receive payments) and (2) holds a copy of the larger ledger (network which updates more frequently), the third thing is, after a certain number of bitcoin from the wallet is put into escrow, the client can start to condense transactions and collect fees. Transaction condensing can be done with a regular asic block erupter miner, retailored for the larger ledger network and with a low difficulty. again how the difficulty is computed should be based on the original design.

this might make people with those now defunct asic miners come back and help support the larger ledger network.

This all needs to be tested out and retested and tested again, if it fails for any reason, the original bitcoin core network shouldn't bat an eye. Mining for the original network should continue without a problem, however now there is another option for those who are barely making profit with the current bitcoin reward and operating fees.

this was one of the wishes of those running nodes since miners work separately (originally wasn't the case): To be able to receive transaction fees for confirming and writing blocks..

Very curious to hear about your opinion.