Re: Multi-chain cryptocurrencies for greater censorship-resistance
⭐ Merited by Heisenberg_Hunter (2)
I have never heard of such a unique idea but they would indeed create a hard fork for both the coins. The very idea of a blockchain is that each block will pave the way to the genesis block. When you have a split in chain just like the BCH hardfork, there would be a split off in blocks as well and both the coins would be following 2 different chains each one different from other right from transaction speeds and total supply. How could we combine 2 different coins which has separate features of its own? By writing up a code through which a newly developed coin will have the features of both bitcoin and ethereum? If we tend to do so, we are creating another alt coin but has never merged the 2 separate blockchains.
The small POW blockchains which you are speaking up are never really needed to this world and literally they would easily suffer the 51% attack quite frequently as they are far less miners contributing to the process! Hashrate is related to the miners progression over time and they have nothing to do with the particular coin blockchain.
For instance hackers can attack Foocoin by launching a 51% attack, since they can easily be destroyed and can never withstand such intense mining conditions or overlapping of chain. Rather there is a possibility of communicating between 2 blockchains by writing up a simple smart contract. Ideas like these are still in the development stage, but might hit the limelight sometime sooner.
Combining of 2 blockchains and creating up a new coin would always create a hard fork and if none of the miners are really willing to mine the coin, there would be absolutely null hashrate and they can be destroyed easily. Either way, thanks for always coming up with innovative thoughts and your topics are good to have a read.
The small POW blockchains which you are speaking up are never really needed to this world and literally they would easily suffer the 51% attack quite frequently as they are far less miners contributing to the process! Hashrate is related to the miners progression over time and they have nothing to do with the particular coin blockchain.
For instance hackers can attack Foocoin by launching a 51% attack, since they can easily be destroyed and can never withstand such intense mining conditions or overlapping of chain. Rather there is a possibility of communicating between 2 blockchains by writing up a simple smart contract. Ideas like these are still in the development stage, but might hit the limelight sometime sooner.
Combining of 2 blockchains and creating up a new coin would always create a hard fork and if none of the miners are really willing to mine the coin, there would be absolutely null hashrate and they can be destroyed easily. Either way, thanks for always coming up with innovative thoughts and your topics are good to have a read.
The main challenge would be to "merge" the Blockchain's transaction history to a cryptocurrency that would live on multiple chains for added censorship-resistance. But maybe it's possible to leave the original chain as is, while relying on other crypto network's hashrate? The Blockchain could easily "notarize" blocks on other chains for added security against 51% attacks. Something like Komodo (KMD) does today with its dPoW consensus algorithm, could work with a multi-chain cryptocurrency of its kind. If it were me, I'd at least create a cryptocurrency that would rely on more than one chain for added protection against malicious actors. Komodo's design works, but it only relies on the BTC chain for security. A cryptocurrency that would rely on 2 or more Blockchain networks' hashrate would be impervious against many undesired situations. I believe this is hard to achieve, but not impossible.
Smaller blockchain networks on the market today, could hard fork to a hybrid consensus algorithm (PoW + PoS) in order to protect themselves against 51% attacks. There are so many ways to do this, limited to the developers' own imagination. I believe that the reason why many altcoins with a small network hashrate have been attacked previously, is because of developer negligence. If developers would take the effort to adopt models that would make their coin resistant against 51% attacks, they could've avoided many losses on the network. The Verge (XVG) cryptocurrency is a good example of a coin whose developers are negligent in every way. It's been attacked several times, yet developers haven't adopted a mechanism that would make the network stronger. Most of its code is simply copy and paste from another cryptocurrency, without true innovation or development at all.
I've seen that some altcoins use a concept called "merged mining" in order to gain another cryptocurrency's hashrate for their own advantage. This allows them to gain greater security against 51% attacks within cyberspace. People who mine "X" coin will also be mining "Y" coin, resulting in added protection for both blockchain networks. We'll have to see what happens over time as new flaws are discovered over time, within existing public blockchain networks. As long as developers focus on security/reliability, people will continue to use their cryptocurrency more thoroughly for daily payments. Just my opinion