Small growing cryptos should be rooted in immutable bitcoin (unfinished article)
Just had this great idea or insight. For a smaller crypto or one without pofw to succeed, it needs to be rooted in bitcoin or ethereum. In other words, if you crypto is based on signatures of key players or proof of stake, it is important that the chain begin rooted in an immutable chain, such as bitcoin. Advertize and replace attack. Ironically, a single transaction made on bitcoin can root an entire new crypto.
New cryptos that rely on signature-based voting rather than computer work, can borrow immutablility. can also use realworld systems such as domain name, medium accounts, etc including decentralized alternatives such as Steemit. But why rely on media and legal avenues when it is easy to publish ideas on bitcoin.
out of time, rooting is they key to protecting from Advertize and replace attack
(means publish original voting public key)
I agree with you. One possible way how can be created new cryptocurrency is a fork of existing cryptocurency. Why people dont use this way?
its rare when others believe in a cryptocurrency more than the founders, also a majority of the early money may be in the hands of those behind it and early adopters.
So I've done some research and the WIF key it is funny about hand writing the bytes. Much safer, for our purposes, is the base 64 key. So an ok protocol would be pad the key with some character with the name at the beginning or end. Then pay into your special public key, which could be a vanity key, if desired.
(updated) Changed above to use base 64 ... before used WIF and had side affects. Wrote, "Ok this is not working, because of standards on bitcoin addresses or something. I used an older version that recognized it by default, but no more. So, if using this, find the old version of bitaddress.org, and it will give a public key."
wrote few days ago, about Continual ‘rooting’ or meshing but havnt thot thru
You know $4.5 to make a $40 omni / tether transaction is crazy. I did it twice yesterday, and it was kind of hard to do. But now I get how tether is used on omniwallet.org.
Why don't you lower the cost by 100x by hashing a bunch of transactions at once. Someone out there keeps a secondary-level omni ledger, with all the amounts and the bitcoin hashes to prove it. So to check your address funds, one can first check bitcoin's ledger, if that fails they can check the secondary omnilayer. Or they can check that first.
This omnipool would have a big pool or poolchain and a little pool. The first pool is a list of transactions that are either directly verifiable on bitcoin with omni protocol or are not. Those not using the typical omni protocol, could be indirectly hashed in units on litecoin, bitcoin, ethereum or something else.
This is how it works. Every 1-3 minutes or so many transactions, a little pool of new transactions, gets hashed into a single hash which is then put on bitcoin or some other chain. The hash and all the transactions are recorded as a unit. To be safe, you save this unit (in your wallet) which proves your money amount.
To pay the pool or poolchain, to group and hash and process transactions, you send them bitcoin or whatever, and a list of addresses. Or you just sent it without payment, hoping enough has been donated to cover your tiny fee. Omniwallet.org can do this themselves, saving customers tons of money and making life easier too. If done right, omni can become extremely useful, fast and cheap.
All that is needed is an addition to the protocol that lets hashes be recognized. If some refuse this type of verification, funds can moved out, to its private address.
For less than a large amount of money, a confirmation on Ethereum can be enough. This can be extremely fast and cheap, even/especially when confirmed in hashed units.