Topic: Why the constant push to have only the one blockchain? - page 4. (Read 2897 times)

For most stuff, it's safe to accept an unconfimed transaction and be happy with it. I don't understand why people argue about this non-issue.

Trying to tie everything to that one blockchain *is* in fact centralising as it puts all them all at risk if there is a failure (such as its crypto being broken).

Having multiple blockchains that work in different ways is just a "sensible" approach or do you keep all of your assets in one single bank account?

Also Bitcoin is simply not suited to many, many things mostly because confirmations take too long.

It is still decentralized (agreed upon ledger by multiple nodes) and still trustless.  Using the blockchain for everything would make it more powerful with all the added computation.  Why not have a backbone blockchain for every project?  Are you afraid it will fail?  Certainly nodes will prevent that and the added computation will make it that much harder for attackers.

I get that you think one blockchain is "centralized" - but that's misleading.  It's set up in a decentralized environment from the beginning.

Even Andreas himself is saying sidechains are sometimes overrated.

I don't get how this makes sense. People propose sidechains so that the main blockchain is not enormous. But... where are you proposing to store the sidechains? Because moving information from one place to another doesn't make it disappear.

Maybe you can say that sidechains don't need to be on the same servers as the main blockchain. But even then, to secure these sidechains you would need a similar amount of servers storing and validating these chains, and it's just the same. Not in the same space, but taking up space anyway.

I definitely agree with some of the issues you are addressing.......I'll check out the white paper when released.

The main thing is that Bitcoin constantly promotes itself as "decentralised" yet wants to be the "one and only block chain" of the world.

If people can't see a slight problem with that then I sincerely wonder about their thinking.

That is a good question and I won't know I guess until we publish - but my point is not that I think my system will be *better* but that it will be an alternative (even if it turns out to be less secure).

So Bitcoin would retain its "gold value" by being the "most secure" if my proof ends up being viewed as less secure.

But even so it is better to have more than one type of blockchain just in case someone finds a horrible attack that "destroys" a blockchain (i.e. being "superior" to Bitcoin is not the point at all).

My concerns with replacing POW and consensus mechanisms are with the following:

1) Trust concerning the security of money?
http://szabo.best.vwh.net/ttps.html

2) The crucial Byzantine-replicated chain-of-signed-transactions?
http://szabo.best.vwh.net/securetitle.html

Hal Finneys “RPOW” that is used to solve the Byzantine General’s Problem, a problem in ordinary computing that demonstrates through “game theory” how a group of potential co-operators can come to the best consensus even with the possibility of having malicious operators among them.
http://cryptome.org/rpow.htm
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-dawn-of-trustworthy-computing.html

A proof-of-work that is a node in the Byzantine-resilient peer-to-peer system to lessen the threat of an untrustworthy party controlling the majority of nodes and thus corrupting a number of important security features.
http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
http://cryptome.org/rpow.htm
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs614/2004sp/papers/lsp82.pdf

Does your new paper contain the advance in technology and knowledge that is needed to produce a truely trusted solution that equals or surpasses the security of proof-of-work and Nakamoto Consensus?

First time i hear someone talking sense in here for a very long time.

Respect goes to OP

Without modification to the code you'd need different ports but my point is not that we want two "identical" blockchain systems as any major problem would presumably hit both of them (i.e. it would be better to have different blockchains that work on different consensus mechanisms).

Is it possible to update the bitcoind node to support both chains without duplicating the existing block data?   So once the first > 1MB block the fork happens but the node is aware of the second chain "possibility" already. As new blocks come in they are put on the correct chain based on size, prev hash, etc..   Or would you need to run 2 separate nodes if you want to use both?  Both on port 8333 but each rejecting the other's blocks and txs.

In regards to the "strength" of PoW I have actually developed a new proof concept which will be published (with a white paper) in the next few months (and it doesn't require massive computing).

Also I am not going to be launching it as a "coin" but instead as a "create your own blockchain for whatever purpose it suits" approach (aimed mostly at business).

Oh - and it will be open source (so I am not going to make money from the concept - only perhaps for consulting).

The point is not about making Bitcoin worth more or less (I am perfectly happy for it to be considered "the gold standard").

The point is that blockchain technology can do a lot of other useful things (such as tallying votes) and there is no good reason that every possible use of a blockchain should be added to the Bitcoin blockchain.

read this thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/campaign-to-boycott-bitcoin-921887

Note: I follow your posts and have a lot of respect for your work with CIYAM/AT but IMHO I DO NOT see the need. I do, on the other hand, see room for subjects like the ones in these three links:
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/548/469
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-dawn-of-trustworthy-computing.html
http://www.coindesk.com/sidechains-white-paper-ecosystem-reboot/


Bitcoin itself had in the past been vulnerable to very similar things that you said happened and now see happen with altcoins these days, but fortunately THAT WINDOW IS NOW CLOSED.

Part of the definition of the bitcoin protocol includes the checking of the proof of work put into various block chains, and then choosing the one with the most work. Bitcoin has more proof-of-work in its blockchain than any other competing cryptocurrency, and so by definition it must be the one chosen, and all others ignored.

Altcoins are all very similar to Bitcoin: there is a block chain to store transactions, a consensus mechanism to build the block chain, and a cryptographic protocol to register transactions. Some prominent examples are PPCoin, Primecoin, Litecoin, and Freicoin.

Some altcoins incorporate interesting new ideas, but there is an essential feature of Bitcoin which they all lack. It is not a matter of its technology, but rather of history and community. Quite simply, a medium of exchange that is more widely accepted on the market is more useful than one which is not. This is known as the network effect. An initial imbalance between two nearly equal media of exchange will benefit whichever is more widely accepted until a single one overwhelms the rest. There is no limit to this effect: ultimately one would always expect a single currency to overcome all its competitors.

Because it was started earlier and has had a greater opportunity to grow and attract users, Bitcoin has a market larger by a wide margin than all the markets of all the altcoins put together, and this makes it vastly more useful as a currency. To defeat Bitcoin, an altcoin would require not just superior technology, but such vastly superior technology as to be an advance over Bitcoin comparable to the advance Bitcoin represents over fiat currency. Furthermore, a truly great innovation would much better serve people by being incorporated into future versions of Bitcoin rather than by requiring them to switch to something else. Indeed, the people who have proposed new ideas that are actually good, such as Zerocoin and mini-blockchain, did not develop their own currencies around them, but have simply described their usefulness as features.

The Bitcoin community is not just overwhelmingly larger but of overwhelmingly better quality as well. Bitcoin is surrounded by real entrepreneurs working hard to create new and useful services for Bitcoin. Altcoins are surrounded by loud-mouthed pretenders with irrational hopes of duplicating Nakamoto's success. This does not mean that there is anything intrinsically wrong with altcoins: the problem is simply that once Bitcoin exists, then there is no additional value, from a monetary standpoint, of creating knock-offs. Can anyone really expect to create something of value by rereleasing Bitcoin under a new name and with a few tiny changes to its source code? What makes Bitcoin great cannot easily be duplicated. Thus, while the Bitcoin community matures and grows as more and more entrepreneurs are attracted to its potential, the altcoin communities can only whine for attention.

For a new currency to take bitcoins place it would have to represent a significant improvement over bitcoin, or bitcoin would have to first FAIL before this could happen. So the question is not will bitcoin become obsolete, but will (your proposed new coin) overtake bitcoin? I don’t see any reason to believe that Altcoins represents a fundamental new innovation with meaningful improved functionality.

In physics, we learn about the concept of entropy. Entropy is often described as “chaos”, “randomness”, or “disorder”. To simplify quantum mechanics as much as possible, imagine a basket with a line drawn down the middle, and throw some balls into the basket. If all the balls are on one side of the line, that is an ordered state and has low entropy. If the balls are spread across both sides then it has higher entropy.

Now, let us take the concept of entropy and apply it to cryptocurrencies. We can imagine each cryptocurrency created has a possibility that some value can be placed within it. If all possible value is placed in bitcoin, and none in litecoin or altcoin, then this is a low entropy state. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that entropy in a system should always increase. So we should expect the total cryptocurrency value to be spread among all the possible altcoins.

Going back to our example of balls in a basket, one can easily get all the balls onto one side of the line simply by tilting the basket. This represents the concept of enthalpy, or energy within the system. Just as gravity pulls the balls onto one side of the basket, enthalpy can pull things into a higher entropic state. The most proof-of-work has been put into bitcoin, and so it takes higher energy to put any value into an altcoin.

From an entropy standpoint, there will always be alternate currencies, and the value assigned to them will always be greater than zero. But from an enthalpy standpoint, bitcoin is favored over altcoins, so the total value of each altcoin will remain very low compared to bitcoins.

the only rational answer to why the constant push for only one blockchain is: greed

(possibly those people are too lazy or stupid to invest in other projects or trade other coins)


another point: all the HYPE feeds on this - it's simple marketing, lies, propaganda

yes, it stifles real innovation
and yes, it's even dangerous to the crypto-endavour as you correctly point out
and yes, it's inconsistent with the idea of decentralisation

and you are probably about to get flamed for noticing it 

A big part of the problem is being able to transfer funds "trustlessly" between blockchains - and this is why I created AT: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-blockchains-might-want-to-consider-using-at-turing-complete-txs-822100

Again - a "sidechain" would be dependent upon Bitcoin - so if a major flaw happens with Bitcoin then all sidechains are killed.

Not a very wise "insurance policy" IMO.

Sidechains can alleviate your space issue.  With today's technology, there's not really an issue with space in the blockchain either...

But why not have just one blockchain?  It makes it that much stronger and valuable as a consensus.  Sure individual organizations can have their own blockchain (token system), serving their specific needs - but this is also possible with sidechains.