@rezin777: there's no such thing as 'absolutely resetting' a block chain, versus simply encouraging people to use a different one. if there were, bitcoin wouldn't be even remotely secure or decentralised. what i said ought to have been clear.
It seems likely to me that a whole bunch of alternate blockchain coins . . . would likely tend toward zero value, as it would always be easier to start a new chain of difficulty one than to mine an existing chain whose difficulty has risen higher than one.
exactly! my central point is that we face this situation now, even if people don't realize it yet. my encouraging one new chain doesn't change anything conceptually.
the problem that we are both describing is why (1) i am concerned about how the current block chain is being promoted to potential long-term holders, (2) i am concerned for bitcoin as a technology if it becomes too closely associated with that block chain, and (3) i was proposing the idea that gavin and the core dev team, rather than others, take control of the process of developing and promoting something more robust.
one solution to the problem - and i believe the problem is very serious for adoption - is to try to raise barriers to entry against new chains. for example, you could get lots of popular informational sites, merchants, and exchanges, which aren't easy to set up and which benefit from network effects, to collude to prevent future block chains. distract the press, imply people who offer my suggestion in the future are filthy communists, etc. but that's expensive, dishonest, and fragile.
a better solution is to develop block chains that discourage people naturally from producing further block chains except for niche applications. as a simple (and possibly unworkable) example, some have explored the idea of 'constant difficulty' as a way to reduce the incentive you describe. that's too simple because it doesn't take into account changes to technology that could lead to rapid inflation; that was one feature of the world that motivated satoshi to tie difficulty to the (roughly) present hashing power of the network. but 'constant generation' (e.g., 300 btc an hour, unchanging, forever) would very likely address many problems and align future mining and security incentives better than the current chain. it would have many other properties that make it more appealing for the public too, compared to the current chain.
i really do think someone should set it up. if nobody does, i'll volunteer to spearhead it, but i won't have time until about a month from now, even though it's not much work. (i write almost all of what i write to the forum in between, or during, meetings. i long for the days when i used to just be a programmer.) if the bitcoin core dev team doesn't want it, we can fork the code, call it 'credits', and market its very clear advantages to the present block chain to the public. it would, if adopted, be a huge success for bitcoin. i think it would be better if gavin did that than i or others, but i'd prefer to do it than not to see it exist at all. we could incorporate intelligent pending 'breaking changes' to the protocol offered by mike, jeff, and others, too.
lastly, i think 'backing' of coins is probably a red herring. it does provide some of the advantages you describe, but it's theoretically not necessary, and bitcoin was aiming to solve some of the problems you're describing more elegantly, based merely on the trade-utility of the coins.
