Cryptocurrency: Rise of Bitcoin Cash BCH

[grarpamp]

This "reclamation", on a blockchain such as implemented BTC
currently, has no privkeys and cannot "reclaim" or "steal" any coin
to any address, it can just erases them from the chain without
further issuance. Call it erasing instead, a dick move since...

The expectation of BTC and most other schemes of blockchains
to date from their inception is that you don't need to in any way
mark current, refresh, or forward activity spend any transaction,
and that old contracts multisig txs etc always remain valid over time.

Users with value on those chains, whether bound in contracts or
owned, will refuse and revolt against any such invalidation attempts,
or migrate value through exchange to other coins when that is the
only cheaper option to such an attack.

The time to invent such lossy or activity requirements is in new coins
that set such expectations of dynamism to their users at launch.


Storage... though density and compute may continue "Moore's", preparing
for if it doesn't, or simply to optimize and reduce consumption and carriage,
seems prudent where available and sensible regardless.


Technically only the UTXO set... past a certain window count of
confirmations sufficient to discourage all future spending / mining
attacks upon any shorter windows of it... is relavant to most BTC style
and other blockchains. The window size is some estimate of excess
of future computing power and other attack methods and surfaces,
converted to a block height. For example, one year to six months of
confirmations might be sufficiently immune, perhaps even approaching
applied real world difficulty of compromising a / many signing key[s]
eg: UTXO's.

History beyond that window count is irrelavant to determining real world
validity of a UTXO. History's only use thereafter is for anti-privacy dataminers
trying to regulate control blackmail censor tax terminate etc, both you and
cryptocurrency. These anti's are secretly embedded in every cryptocurrency
project, and abound in the rest of the world, and will resist proposals to
create history free coins and operation. They'll datamine anyway the stupid
non-private coins like BTC, but they can't do that with strong cryptographic
privacy coins, like ZEC, that use ZKP's.
Users simply do not need that history on disk, nor do nodes need to be
passing it around as bootstrap. Users can set a flag to listen for and retain
their own histories if they need some blockchain style proofs for whatever
purposes.
And just as users might pay for their own disk / bandwidth to maintain
history since Genesis, they can just as easily pay the dataminers instead,
up until even the dataminers possibly cannot afford to keep it, or the
irrelavance of age hits.


To do this the software upgrades to a protocol that not only mines the UTXO
set into a form of current meta transaction blocks like BTCP did to bootstrap
ZCL + BTC = BTCP into its launch... but also does this checkpointing
periodically
at programmed heights, adding confirmations to the latest UTXO meta tx block
sets. Everyone holds at least one sufficiently confirmed set which is then used
as bootstrap for clients similar to BTCP. Clients refer to the recent
set and the
confs over it to validate received value. Clients will scan forward from a well
confirmed set to see if something was subsequently spent in the usual fashion,
thus avoiding race and poorly confirmed status of newly published sets. They
might also consider the embedded signatures of some plurality of miners over
UTXO sets for bootstrap purposes, or some live network method, including
referring to the dataminers, to serve any need to fill in for now
missing genesis
path.

Thus the impact of natural tx growth on storage space and validity referencing
CPU time becomes smaller, now expressed in terms of size of the few UTXO
sets needed (perhaps no more than two or three) and their window sizes.

That's one of the ideas that has been out there for existing blockchains.

Another one is splitting and distributing the data storage for reference
across the p2p nodes via DHT indexes. ie: 100000 nodes, 10 levels
redundant... a million nodes, smaller than even the bittorrent cloud.

The ideas seem more like underhood scaling optimizations, than
being "sidechains / lightning / forks / alt / shit / central" solutions (as
some say now affect BTC) away from further exploring closer to
original "Satoshi' architechtures.

A lot of people are now looking closely at BCH with its rising adoption
(even now surpassing BTC in areas), and others, to be shining
examples of that exploration.

Who knows, it's still early days for all things cryptocurrency.
The right combination of factors leading to long term adoption
of say a max of five leading coins covering the range of blockchain
use cases probably hasn't been found yet.

Stay nimble my friends.