[quote=“dallyshalla, post:1, topic:6022”]
We need to be liberated from the blockchain, they are shackles. Chains are shackles, blockchains the same.
[/quote] I got a few bitcoin & ether, but I don’t really feel bound to these currencies/technologies. Never forget that your the maker of an revolutionary exchange. It’s all really simple: Exchange the currencies/technologies that makes you feel like your shackled to a currency/technology that gives you the feeling/idea that your free.
Nowadays we have a choice…
Your one of the brightest dudes here, please don’t be distracted by talks/technologies that might not be future proof. Purely the distribution model of SAFEcoin is like ALIENTECHNOLOGY imho. Bitcoin, Ethereum and even Godvernments did not solve that problem. Who knows 20 years from now people don’t have to BEG.
I mean the Bitcoin blockchain is like capitalism, the least bad way to organize the (crypto) economy. Everyone thinks they have a great idea but then it doesn’t quite work.
Everything considered, nothing comes even close to Bitcoin.
The video below contains some deep thoughts about another recent “invention”, private (and worse, private permissioned,) blockchains.
PoW as implemented by Bitcoin is very robust and has a pretty long history (by crypto currency standards). No comparable amount of money will enter any other coin any time soon.
The incentive is to get the rewards from the extra side chains also for the same work.
While you are generating bitcoins, why not also get free domain names for the same work?
If you currently generate 50 BTC per week, now you could get 50 BTC and some domain names too.
You have one piece of work. If you solve it, it will solve a block from both Bitcoin and BitDNS. In concept, they’re tied together by a Merkle Tree. To hand it in to Bitcoin, you break off the BitDNS branch, and to hand it in to BitDNS, you break off the Bitcoin branch.
In practice, to retrofit it for Bitcoin, the BitDNS side would have to have maybe ~200 extra bytes, but that’s not a big deal. You’ve been talking about 50 domains per block, which would dwarf that little 200 bytes per block for backward compatibility. We could potentially schedule a far in future block when Bitcoin would upgrade to a modernised arrangement with the Merkle Tree on top, if we care enough about saving a few bytes.
Note that the chains are below this new Merkle Tree. That is, each of Bitcoin and BitDNS have their own chain links inside their blocks. This is inverted from the common timestamp server arrangement, where the chain is on top and then the Merkle Tree, because that creates one common master chain. This is two timestamp servers not sharing a chain.
Satoshi seems to have had in mind to be able to do extra activities from a single network. In effect it is what ether attempts, but I think the limitation is in using blockchains as before, and I think that if ether has success in it’s project it will employ a lot of not blockchain aspects.
I feel that the divisions as to which blockchain to use, ethereuem, your own, bitcoin etc etc; will make way for real innovations to come through, decentralized consensus mechanisms and concept of proof of work;
Namecoin satisfies some app-related requirements much better than bitcoin, and I really like Namecoin, but the tragedy is it’s mined by a small group of enthusiasts (well, not really, but that’s how it looks like when you compare it against the Bitcoin network) and therefore probably less secure (if you’re a big target) than existing (traditional) systems.
I’m not a bitcoin maximalist - there should and will be a variety of approaches. Like with the sewer rat approach, may the best ones survive!