Storing an entire other blockchain's blocks in the Bitcoin blockchain is better than monkey JPG's right?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I think so. The thing about rollups is that the data is largely... off chain, right?

I think it is a really cool idea to have a system with Bitcoin’s block time and blocksize limit but with potentially infinite other options for what goes into the block. Imagine the possibilities for Lightning channels on a sovereign side chains when they don’t have to work around Bitcoin’s limitations

I don’t know anything about any of that but I’m just gonna say yes based on the vibes

Blockchain is awesome.

Makes deletion easier to understand.

It’s feature, not a big damn it.

nah cuz blockchains don’t scale and that is effectively just raising the block size limit.

we’re not gonna scale bitcoin by slapping other blockchains on the side like a goddamn erector set

Storing another Blockchain in Bitcoin would not inherently increase the block size.

it is a de facto block size increase

no

if storing the blocks is to enable a side chain then yes

If you put a 50gb file on a 100gb hard drive, how big is the hard drive?

Why not just store the hash of the most current state as a way to secure it? For the sake of data permanence, pertinent data could be a merkle tree held by the interested parties, culminating in the stored state on Bitcoin, and the proof of that data, such as address balance or even a large file, could be quite small, like 32kB for a 64-bit SHA-2 hashed tree (could fit in a single ping). The latest merkle top state could be stored on the most secure and globally consensual storage. A way to query network peers for updates to adjacent branches would be necessary, though.

Idk maybe the jpeg stuff should be on l2 or something