The Internet Archive at archive.org, while free to use for individuals, has a yearly budget of USD$10m.  The cost of storage media is quite cheap, but the cost of managing it reliably in the face of errors, accidents, and the changes brought by time can be quite high.

archive.org benefits from foundation funding, and the fact that its founder, Brewster Kahle, sold Alexa Internet to Amazon for USD$250m in stock in 1996, and from all appearances is trying to do a seriously important thing for the world.

And yes, they accept bitcoin:
"Can I donate BitCoins?

Yes, please do. Our BitCoin address is: 17gN64BPHtxi4mEM3qWrxdwhieUvRq8R2r . Every bit helps."

But don't trust randomly-pasted bitcoin addresses, because I might have just pasted my own there.  Instead, visit their donation page yourself:  https://archive.org/donate/index.php

I'm going to run with this idea for a moment.

Lets call it Block Chain Link Fencing.

The ways to implement might include things like
1) merge mining the new chain
2) Finding the the unspent transactions
3) providing a way to move unspent transactions from the old chain to the new chain

There are other solutions already in play such as the use of bloom filters to prune the old chain in the software.  But I thought the name that popped into my head for this feature was clever enough that I should write something for it.
(we are either fencing coins, or fencing off bloat by linking block chains, take your pick)

(3) boils down to a checkpoint mechanism -- anything that can be done with two independent blockchains can be done inside a single one, if you can checkpoint the state in a way that's smaller than the full history of the blockchain.  If you can't checkpoint them, you can't move them to another blockchain.

As a thought experiment, it's worth asking what the difference is between two blockchains and a single blockchain with a "version" counter that's incremented periodically (or a version bit, in the simplest case, so you can swap between the two).  The answer is -- really, they're the same.

This doesn't follow because it would assume that XMR is currently maxed out on bandwidth or Moore's Law considerations, which is false.

If darkotas Mon, or another block chain was public viewable, what then?


But doesn't Bitcoin only have around 1million users atm after 5 years? Though I should probably account for the fact that prestigious altcoins would gain a larger following than Bitcoin in it's early days since the cryptocurrency sector has a lot more people now.

Even if his requirement is for maximized decentralization his argument is still false. PCs are not maxed out on XMR today. Even some smartphones could almost certainly run XMR today fairly well. (I'm running it on a nettop that is smartphone-class, and it is nowhere near maxed out.)

Yea corrected it, forgot that cryptocurrencies are much more well known and altcoins grow a lot faster than BTC during its early years.

Are you referring to users or price? Both?

I was thinking of users.  I put larger error bars around price, and consider that the pricing dynamics may differ substantially from bitcoin, so I tend not to re-purpose bitcoin pricing models to xmr, at least until there is enough xmr data to reparameterize them empirically.  Consequently I don't draw any strong conclusions about pricing from the adoption curve, just yet.  I am content that there is a strong bias towards appreciation, and refrain from making long-term central tendency estimates for the time-being.

That is because as far I know you are not close to maximizing transactions (and Peter R showed that market cap is correlated to the square of an increase in a proxy for txs as a proxy for user adoption), and as far as I know in fact proactively discouraged them recently by raising tx fees to deal with a DoS attack. At micro transaction scale (which I assume Monero is not targeting), I think Monero would be at limits on PCs near-term. The paradigm appears to be broken to me at multiple levels including which is that if an authority compels me to reveal my passwords, they can unwind all my anonymity on the block chain (and if enough people comply, then even those who didn't reveal their passwords have their anonymity set reduced and potentially lose anonymity).

I realize I am talking about issues that are not Monero's target market, i.e. it was designed for privacy and not to defeat the NSA. And it was designed for the level of txs Bitcoin handles, not for some nirvana of a micro transaction funded WWW to replace Google's fascist ad-funded takeover of the internet.

I suppose I should soften my criticism from "joke" to "not up to the standard of my idealistic hopes".

But my love ones are asking me to stop revealing hints. So I guess you will assume you are correct for the time being.