Topic: A new cryptocurrency with two-phase-proof-of-work (Read 972 times)

I like to see this project in the announcement thread not here in the altcoin section, this is more like an announcement more than a discussion on the about what's happening in the altcoin, this project has more potential to get more supporters if they can move it in the announcement, checking on the website, miner and wallets are not available, I'll follow this thread for more interesting update. 

The official website of the "luck" project has been officially launched at https://lucknet.club, and the recruitment plan for miners is also released immediately. Welcome everyone to pay more attention to it.

This is a unique concept I must say but everyone knows that in the crypto space, having a unique concept is one thing while being able to bring it into action or existence such that it will benefit all and sundry is another thing; and this is where the problems starts, usually after listing on exchange. To me, this is good but will be better or I will be glad to see that the team is building this project adequately while ensuring it achieves its full potential. I believe with this, the project will be a valuable and attractive one.

Regarding the 51% attack, here is a simple comparison with Bitcoin's mining model.

In the Bitcoin system, for example, honest miner A has 1000 nodes, and a malicious miner B has 1100 nodes, then B has 10% more computing power than A. B selfish mining only needs 10 blocks to exceed A .

In a two-phase-proof-of-work system, for example, honest miner A has 1000 nodes, and the malicious miner B has 1100 nodes. Because the total number of nodes in the entire network is relatively large, the work of the first phase is much larger than the second phase (the work of the second phase is the work of the node with the highest luck), B's block generation time in the first phase has no advantage, and B's block generation time in the second phase will only be reduced by 1/10 compared to A's block generation time in the second phase. In two phases, the advantage of B's block generation time is very small. If B wants to implement selfish mining, it needs a lot of blocks to exceed A.

There's a notion of non-outsourceable Proof-of-Work puzzles, and Ergo Platform cryptocurrency has Autolykos PoW algorithm which prevents pool formation ( see https://docs.ergoplatform.com/ErgoPow.pdf for details).

However, if smart contracts are powerful enough, still miners can do coalitions for most of NO-PoW schemes using collaterals , see this paper of my co-authorship https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/044 (published @ FC'20).

So please consider your scheme against smart-contract powered pools.

Thanks for your help sharing. I like this mechanism of action. Does it look like it will be better than Bitcoin? I also don't understand 51% attacks, can you share more information about 51% attacks?

In essence, the proof-of-work mechanism is an effective way to resist sybil attacks, but it is conducive to the formation of mining pools. The two-stage proof-of-work mechanism proposed in the luck project is an upgrade of the proof-of-work mechanism. It not only effectively resist sybil attacks, but also prevents cooperation between miners to effectively resist the alliance and make the network more secure.

Hello everyone.

I am homlos from the crypto community. After a long time to observation and think on the underlying operating mechanism of cryptocurrency, we propose a new mechanism of the two-phase-proof -of-work. Thank you very much for the discussion and join the project construction.

In the Bitcoin network, as the computing power of the mining pool continues to increase, individual nodes can no longer independently participate in mining. Individual miners can only participate in mining by joining the mining pool, which completely deviates from "one-CPU-one- vote" vision. In essence, a mining pool is only equivalent to a node, monopoly mining is very terrible. In addition to unfair incentive, monopoly mining is possible for mining pools with greater computing power to be actively or passively carryed out attacks on the network, resulting in the collapse of the entire system.

We believe that in the Bitcoin network, the formation of the mining pool is inevitable, because in the proof-of-work mechanism, the miner can outsource part of his work to other miners. The cooperative mining between miners is obviously superior to non-cooperative mining. The traditional view is that the formation of the mining pool is due to the ASIC. We believe that this is not the key reason. Many existing projects eventually formed the mining pool after adopting the anti-ASIC strategy. The strategy only limits the growth speed of the computing power of a single node, but the advantages of cooperative mining are still obvious.

In the traditional proof-of-work mechanism, we believe that cooperative mining is inevitable. This is because there are no puzzles can’t be outsourced.

We propose a two-phase-proof-of-work mechanism to solve the problem of cooperative mining. We introduce a concept of lucky  in each round of mining, that is, miners rely on luck to mine. We split each round of mining tasks into two phases of proof of work, the first phase is a lightweight task to complete the calculation of the luck , and then calculate the difficulty of the second phase of the mining task according to the luck, The higher the luck, the smaller the difficulty, the smaller the luck, the greater the difficulty. The second phase is to complete the corresponding work according to the corresponding difficulty. We can prove that under this two-phase-proof-of-work mechanism, the expected output of miners' cooperative mining is lower than that of their non-cooperative mining. This is the key to achieving "one-CPU-one-vote". Whether each node belongs to the same miner, it will choose to mine independently.

In luck network, the systemic risk of the network is no longer a 51% computing power attack, but a 51% node attack, that is, a mine owner has mastered more than 51% of independent nodes in the entire network. Attacks are destructive to the system. But obviously, it is much easier to master 51% of the computing power than to master 51% of the nodes. In addition, for the  two-phase-proof-of-work mechanism, if the number of honest nodes in the whole network is enough, for example, more than 1000 nodes, even if a miner has mastered 51% of the nodes, he wants to make a profit through a fork, he needs on average to mine 1000000 blocks to catch up with the main network, which is a huge cost.

For more information about the project, please refer to the white paper :
https://github.com/luck-coin/luckcoin/blob/master/White-paper/luckcoin.md

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at
[email protected].

I'm not against new ideas, but don't you think that this would make everything worst? Just think about it, a pool can split its miners as a single CPU, wait until one with luck gets the block and the right to mine, then join the proccessing power of that one pool, mine the block and split again. The bigger the pools is, the higher the chance to have "luck" will be  and if that stays the same  some of these pools will have a lot of luck with a really low difficulty, until at some point a big enought pool can monopolized it.