Re: Multi-chain cryptocurrencies for greater censorship-resistance
Most of its code is simply copy and paste from another cryptocurrency, without true innovation or development at all.
Pretty much this. The 2017-2018 cryptocurrency concept was more or less like a get rich quick scheme such that if a non-developer just copy pastes the code of bitcoin with very little changes like the total supply and the block emission rate it would soar up in price when they reach the trading market. Sadly, the developers run away with the ICO money leaving the coin behind. When the investors tend to do a little research, they start to dump the coin. This was how the ICO coins came to an end at the end of 2018. Later on people started researching about the team before they simply threw their money inside the rabbit hole. Either way, there was a very late response for these scams which were taking place all over the 2 years and all was the result of people losing their hard earned money.This was the primary reason for the shift of people towards coins which are practically usable in real world like Monero and Ethereum. I am still not sure how many more years these altcoins (except few promising one) will survive before almost everything is being replaced by bitcoin. On the other hand, satoshi has previously spoke about merged mining concept in one of his earlier post. Though through the merged mining concept, the altcoin can just be joining hands with the major network but when the miner tends to solve both the network coins, the one with lower difficulty gets solved first leaving the major network behind. These would all be linked to one single merkle tree.
There was a discussion between theymos and nanotube in the creation of such a coin which might be using a merged mining concept but not sure if they came out successfully. But later at one point of time, namecoin came into existence based on the discussion between satoshi and other devs. I am not sure, if the announcement was from a alt account of theymos, nanotube but they came with a imaginary name of Vincent Durham Check this out yourself.
I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.
The networks wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.
I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.
Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.
The networks wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.
I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.
Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.
Probably I should restart reading more history threads.
