But why does this need to be the case?
Imagine you had a blockchain you could fork at arbitrary points, let's limit ourselves to 2 levels - a core level and a sub level.
On the core level the only thing you can do is create sub-chains, let's say through a PoW algorithm.
On the sub-level, it would work like a regular blockchain, so you could write transactions into each chain with a PoW algorithm.
Let's identify each user with, a letter, and each subchain with a number.
Now, the problem would be that wallets could be distributed between chains, so for A, you'd need to add up the balance of A0 and A3 if we presume that A has coins on these chains.
Now, if A wants to transfer money to B, let's say she transfers from wallet A0 to B1, she just writes a transaction into subchain 0's ledger to transfer coins from A0 to B1, with the usual PoW algorithm. Then let's say the miners who manage chain 1 record this transaction into it out of charity - since A has PoW already invested, these sort of cross-chain transactions can't be spammed.
Now I described the algorithm with 2 layers, but it could scale to an arbitrary number, to minimize the chain lengths, as long as the chain id's are unique.
Now I'm pretty sure I missed something dumb, but I can't see it :)
Blockchain always uses the maximum amount to secure every transaction — like using an armored truck and a convoy to transport $0.25. So it can’t support micropayments or even mainstream payment systems.
You can shard Ethereum by smart contract, for instance, but then when the Total Value Locked in that contract exceeds the cost of a sustained 51% attack, there are incentives to destroy confidence in the chain and take the money. (So the theory goes.)
https://community.intercoin.org/t/web3-moxie-signal-telegram...