Maybe blockchain isn't a futuristic technology Maybe it's just another program, inefficiënt at what it does The overhead that comes with basing what you have on all of history is overkill to me You can already see it with current blockchain sizes, with relatively low volume of transactions BTC: 272.63 GB ETH: 413.30 GB BCH: 170.06 GB LTC: 25.54 GB BSV: 190.11 GB
This question comes to mind, why don't we sign the currency itself? Every coin has it's own key, or say the key is the coin Every coin can be split or joined by creating new keys by node-confirmed signing with the old keys
This way, you actually are the owner of the currency Your wallet is a store of currency keys and only the list of public keys to coins has to be kept and updated which also removes the old keys thus keeping it clean
Unless one of you can give me a healthy dose of hopium I’m gonna have to agree with this prick
Hunter Price
what about fees? how do you pay them if you do not anticipate the key?
Dominic Rodriguez
I’m too brianlet to understand this question can someone help understand
Camden Hall
Thanks bought 100k
Christopher Watson
Minted by validating a transaction, probably a minescule amount enough to justify running a node I have more on this, but I'm reluctant on giving away my thoughts
Ayden Davis
Validating a split or join*
Ethan Phillips
dont give u thought here, just use your idea to create your own stuff, but be smart and dont try to be a milionarie bcuz they wont allow, do like satoshi, dissapear.
Ethan Walker
So rather than having 3 bitcoins i have 3 Key 1: AXE88FE7FE7AF8EAWF Key 2: XXXGNEF2R3QRF4343F and so forth?
I'm sure this would be quite useful if you programmed this for the computer to read shapes rather than 0's and 1's. Thats what my austic mind is telling me.
What is the consensus mechanism? Why would any node care whether I own the keys I claim to unless I claim to own keys they personally claim to own?
Gavin Nelson
drns
John Scott
i like the idea ( but i think it opens up new , prev unknown problems )
Chase Reed
eg what i mean there's usually a price you pay, if you don't have a large blockchain you pay with "something" else. interesting would be to figure what this "something" is in this case.
Blake Butler
hire some devs and give us Jow Forums bros a nice slice for being here plsandthanks
Caleb Baker
The key to Bitcoin is its NOT having a central authority. If you can math your way to doing this with your scheme, I agree it could be more efficient. You could not use discrete coins since people have to make change.
Also, you would still have to overcome Bitcoin's first-mover advantage. I think this is impossible at this point.
What you might be able to do is partner with some small tourist destination, say one of the Caribbean islands. Deploy your thing there, making them a cashless society. All transactions are anonymous, all transactions are taxed, money supply is managed honestly, tourists don't have to worry about being mugged.
Once successful there, move on to the next island. Keep going until you've hooked all of them up. Then move on to shithole South America. Take over the entire global financial system. Then crash the system and ride out with your Mongol Horde of sluts. Pretty soon you've conquered the planet.
Isaiah Lewis
Also, is this kind of like IOTA's Tangle in which each tx has to verify two other tx's?
In fact, and I am a retarded pajeet here so could be wrong, isn't this pretty similar to any sort of DAG?
Jackson Diaz
1) Why does this idea have to be centrally controlled? I see some hardships but could maybe work (again, am retard, so) 2) This could be first mover advantage of whatever new network this would be. Granted, that didn't happen for DAGs (or I'm sure any other sort of DLT) 3) Yeah this is a based plan
Bentley Anderson
1) I didn't say it has to be centrally controlled. In fact, I told him that it has to NOT be centrally controlled, and to find a solution that works. That's what gives Bitcoin its value, not having a figurehead who can reverse transactions and block "de eebil notzis!"
Oh okay I completely agree. I thought that for some reason you believed this network innately needed a central figure. Yeah fuck any possible censorship or control, always
Joseph Murphy
i think i read somewhere about this idea being already tried out. like 10-15years ago...im not entirely sure but i think when i researched into Craig Wright i stumbled upon somehing like this. Like he did a lot of research into past systems like E-Gold and how digital money could be done....i think from there i've heard it before. I could be wrong but the idea is very intuitive and i would really estimate someone already tried that out.
blockchain is an advanced concept that 'sort' of suceeds the theory described here.
Logan Harris
That's what I'm looking for, whether it has been thought of because it comes almost naturally with the idea of a cryptocurrency There are barriers that had to be passed first for having trust in an abstract concept like a cryptocurrency Bitcoin having a ledger is undisputable proof of it's functioning, this creates trust Current advancements have already overshadowed it, but the populous isn't aware yet. By creating a brand new system with our 2019 hindsight it might just be possible to use what has been established to let old give way to new
In case my ID changed, I'm OP and this will be called Mono
Luke Brooks
>That's what I'm looking for, whether it has been thought of because it comes almost naturally with the idea of a cryptocurrency There are barriers that had to be passed first for having trust in an abstract concept like a cryptocurrency 100% agree >Bitcoin having a ledger is undisputable proof of it's functioning, this creates trust agreedo >Current advancements have already overshadowed it, but the populous isn't aware yet. What's being referenced here? Implementations of DAGs? is this a nod to the 'the military has tech 30 years before the public"? which may have been true in the 20s, but I feel as if it's 100's of years ahead of the public. Are you including yourself in not being aware of the next big thing? >By creating a brand new system with our 2019 hindsight it might just be possible to use what has been established to let old give way to new I like this style of thinking. When I first started reading your reply, I thought you were insinuating you were throwing out the idea, and I was going to tell you to think again. I wonder what problems the man who tried this, from the commenter you responded to's story, had to face. And why a transition into something like the blockchain was considered superior.
>In case my ID changed, I'm OP and this will be called Mono It did change, but fuck it, I'm biting. I like the name. Has this been something you've sat on for awhile or is it fresh?
Anyways, I'm going to school for comp sci in the fall. Will be a shit dev for years but I'm here to help. I'm also one of the best shills, meme makers, FUD spreaders, this side of the mississippi. Regardless, please keep us all updated or give us a tg/discord - something.
Michael Collins
Somewhere I think I've said enough, I'll release (something like) this within half a year after doing the homework Remember the name, even if I change it I'll reference it somewhere Feel free to post any findings about similar implementation to what I already posted, I'll read them
