Why not have 1000 currencies named Ether000, Ether001, ....Ether999, each with their own blockchain?

Since ethereum will have all kinds of facilities for hedging/currencyexchange/arbitrage, why not just have 1000 separate ethereum blockchains, all structurally identical?

For some of the ether chains, the nominal currency value would be higher and therefore more mining would be done. Others would have a smaller nominal currency value, and therefore would allow for contracts with lower fees. Most likely, the value of each currency will be decided by the utility of the contracts that happen to be on that specific chain (and the feeds that happen to be embedded into that chain.)

In this way, people could decide whether they prefer security vs. cost for their contracts, by choosing a busy or less busy blockchain. If a person needs to switch blockchains, there would be contracts available for performing the currency exchange, making it easy to switch to another ether variant.

One could also emagine that some of the blockchains would be chocked full of feed data, so that contracts in those blockchains would have immense amounts of external data available, but contracts in those blockchain would have very high fees, given the limited space remaining for contracts.

This means "full" clients would only need to download the blockchains for those ether variants the user cares about, eliminating the blockchain bloat issue almost entirely.

I'm sure this idea has already been discussed previously- It's pretty obvious... I'm just surprised I haven't read about it yet though, given the perfect fit for the design of ethereum. Of course, this concept is fully compatible with the current fundraising plans, since you could just give people 1 ether each of 1000 types instead of 1000 ether of only one type.

Can someone who knows the technical details better than me point out the PROS/CONS of this design? I'd love to hear them.


  • aqv99taqv99t Member Posts: 7
    A Blockchain is secured by proof of work. Wouldn't it be much easier to attack 1 Blockchain out of 1000 compared to a single chain with all the computing power focused on it?

    Also, how do you propose doing transactions across chains? I can envision doing trustless Bitcoin/ethereum trades by including the Bitcoin headers in the ethereum chain, and then claiming some locked ether by proving you sent the requested Bitcoin transaction. Doing that with 1000 block chains would get out of hand really fast.
  • drcodedrcode Member Posts: 62 ✭✭
    > Wouldn't it be much easier to attack 1 Blockchain out of 1000?

    Yes, I would expect in the end there would be a power law distribution of POW across the blockchains, many at great risk of attack, some that are medium secure, and a small number with very high security. The more secure blockchains would have far greater nominal currency value (which is why more miners are mining them.)

    The point is, the USER gets to DECIDE if they want to pay for the extra security. With this design, the very weak blockchains would constantly be attacked, but who cares? Attacks cost money and they would become functional again once the attacker stops, which they eventually would.

    > Also, how do you propose doing transactions across chains?

    As you point out, the same way people currently exchange bitcoins with litecoin with dogecoin, etc: They use a currency exchange. Except that ethereum has the promise of making currency exchanges much much better (and with lower fees) since they can be implemented as DACs.

    > Doing that with 1000 block chains would get out of hand [because of blockchain bloat]

    No, because you could arrange the 1000 block chains into a higher dimensional network. For instance, you could arrange them (conceptually) as a 4^5 hypercube and then to get from Ether23->Ether871 would only take 5 jumps, where each blockchain has feeds embedded in it to neighbors in the hypercube edge, that can be used by trading contracts to help perform the currency exchange. (However, you'd probably almost never do that many jumps, because the most valuable blockchains would likely be neighbors to each other.)
Sign In or Register to comment.