Parallel Blockchains (PB)

[Ian Ravenscroft]

They are also useful from an infrastructure and load balancing perspective .

We should understand and possibly influence the direction of this.

Advantages: - addressing different needs by different technologies (e.g. 10TPS vs 1000TPS) - cleaner infrastructure - separation of concerns (AE here, NXT there, VS over here, etc.)

[Ian Ravenscroft]

marcus03 +1

[Ian Ravenscroft]

ferment - please clarify. I'm not sure I'm for any kind of load balancing without a deep understand of the p2p mechanics since you'll have nodes with the same virtual name that are potentially on different forks or other problems.

[ChuckOne]

@ferment @chanc3r I am currently designing CCT for NXT. msin asked me, if I were waiting for parallel blockchains. I said "no" prematurely. But, after careful consideration, I would say "yes". For CCT, I would like to have such thing like a plugin as the verification of CCT transactions are not that trivial and maybe extremely slow. Furthermore, we need to include bitcoin related data into the NXT blockchain. I would rather avoid bloating the NXT chain.

To make a long story short: I think parallel blockchains could help maintaining a cleaner NXT.

Thorough consideration is needed of course.

Starting point: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg5584903#msg5584903

[ferment]

@ChuckOne what's CCT?

I think until the idea is more than conceptual, it's not really a concern for the committee. Partitioning the network based on different blockchain may or may not be a good thing. I like the idea of a node is a node is a node, but all this is speculation until some test code exists.