I'm not an expert on it, in fact my knowledge is very limited, but I don't think it's possible for a single coin to have multiple blockchains!
Topic: Why not a single coin with multiple blockchains? (Read 507 times)
We are about to have this happening!!
Bitcoins on 3 different blockchains: bitcoincore, bitcoin-XT and bitcoinclassic!
Bitcoins on 3 different blockchains: bitcoincore, bitcoin-XT and bitcoinclassic!
Not sure if you are kidding, but this would not be as good as you put it. Instead, only one stream would survive in the end, which is not necessarily good, right?
Here is my idea: You have a single coin, with a single wallet, that has multiple independent blockchains. So you'd have Netcoin1, Netcoin2, Netcoin3... Netcoin10. You could start with as many blockchains as you'd like (although number is set at the start), with a total preset number of total coins identical for each.
This way you would have with 10 blockchains, each an equivalent size to bitcoin's, the same as 10x the transaction volume of BTC. They would all use a single wallet, with a shapeshift like system (or decentralized if possible) for trading between chains that could only exchange 1:1. All coins would be considered equal. This way instead of worrying about increasing the block size, you have parallel blockchains of a smaller size.
This would also incentive miners to keep the hashrates equivalent, as they would jump back and forth to find lower difficulty. The average user could have their coins spread over many blockchains, and the wallet would choose the one that is currently cheapest and fastest to use for any particular transaction.
Obviously this is just a rough sketch of an idea, but why wouldn't something like this work?
great idea,but hard to achieve it. maybe blockchain just want to provide precious and expensive coin,not cheap and scamable coin This way you would have with 10 blockchains, each an equivalent size to bitcoin's, the same as 10x the transaction volume of BTC. They would all use a single wallet, with a shapeshift like system (or decentralized if possible) for trading between chains that could only exchange 1:1. All coins would be considered equal. This way instead of worrying about increasing the block size, you have parallel blockchains of a smaller size.
This would also incentive miners to keep the hashrates equivalent, as they would jump back and forth to find lower difficulty. The average user could have their coins spread over many blockchains, and the wallet would choose the one that is currently cheapest and fastest to use for any particular transaction.
Obviously this is just a rough sketch of an idea, but why wouldn't something like this work?
Why we must think how to complicate things more?
We have greater problems, for example blockchain is large and you need 50gb hdd to store it .
Better find out how to reduce size of it..
We have greater problems, for example blockchain is large and you need 50gb hdd to store it .
Better find out how to reduce size of it..
We are about to have this happening!!
Bitcoins on 3 different blockchains: bitcoincore, bitcoin-XT and bitcoinclassic!
Bitcoins on 3 different blockchains: bitcoincore, bitcoin-XT and bitcoinclassic!
Multiple blockchains already means they are different systems. Do you mean you have two different accounting for the same company- one for legal and one for illegal?
I believe that you would need to keep the whole history of a Bitcoin in the same chain, this would get difficult if you tried to combine coins from different chains in a new transaction. It's not the storage space that's the problem, and your solution wouldn't reduce that anyway. In fact it would probably increase it as you would need to add a chain identifier to each transaction.
I'm not suggesting keeping the entire history on a single chain. I'm saying the chains are independent, yet identical in terms of technical specs, and joined together in a wallet system.
Yeah, but this also means 10 times (plus new overhead) costs for running a full node in terms of storage.
I believe that you would need to keep the whole history of a Bitcoin in the same chain, this would get difficult if you tried to combine coins from different chains in a new transaction. It's not the storage space that's the problem, and your solution wouldn't reduce that anyway. In fact it would probably increase it as you would need to add a chain identifier to each transaction.
I'm not suggesting keeping the entire history on a single chain. I'm saying the chains are independent, yet identical in terms of technical specs, and joined together in a wallet system.
I believe that you would need to keep the whole history of a Bitcoin in the same chain, this would get difficult if you tried to combine coins from different chains in a new transaction. It's not the storage space that's the problem, and your solution wouldn't reduce that anyway. In fact it would probably increase it as you would need to add a chain identifier to each transaction.
Here is my idea: You have a single coin, with a single wallet, that has multiple independent blockchains. So you'd have Netcoin1, Netcoin2, Netcoin3... Netcoin10. You could start with as many blockchains as you'd like (although number is set at the start), with a total preset number of total coins identical for each.
This way you would have with 10 blockchains, each an equivalent size to bitcoin's, the same as 10x the transaction volume of BTC. They would all use a single wallet, with a shapeshift like system (or decentralized if possible) for trading between chains that could only exchange 1:1. All coins would be considered equal. This way instead of worrying about increasing the block size, you have parallel blockchains of a smaller size.
This would also incentive miners to keep the hashrates equivalent, as they would jump back and forth to find lower difficulty. The average user could have their coins spread over many blockchains, and the wallet would choose the one that is currently cheapest and fastest to use for any particular transaction.
Obviously this is just a rough sketch of an idea, but why wouldn't something like this work?
This way you would have with 10 blockchains, each an equivalent size to bitcoin's, the same as 10x the transaction volume of BTC. They would all use a single wallet, with a shapeshift like system (or decentralized if possible) for trading between chains that could only exchange 1:1. All coins would be considered equal. This way instead of worrying about increasing the block size, you have parallel blockchains of a smaller size.
This would also incentive miners to keep the hashrates equivalent, as they would jump back and forth to find lower difficulty. The average user could have their coins spread over many blockchains, and the wallet would choose the one that is currently cheapest and fastest to use for any particular transaction.
Obviously this is just a rough sketch of an idea, but why wouldn't something like this work?
Jump to: