I have an Idea for a random source:
Lets take the previous blockhash and the Grain adress of the miner and hash it.
something like this: hash(previous_block_hash + Grain_adress).
The greedy miner would first have to search for a proper Grain adress for his miner in order to receive the nex superblock.
Maybe you can design it to be very difficult to find the next proper adress for the superblock, like:
if hash(previous_block_hash + Grain_adress) contains "99999" = superblock
You could also add a superblock difficulty:
if no superblocks are found for a long time, the superblockdifficulty goes down, lets say from must_contain = "99999" to must_contain to "9999".
You could make it very very hard for a block to be a superblock, but every single block could be a superblock and the greedy miner would be fucked.
lets call it: "Proof of luck".
Lets take the previous blockhash and the Grain adress of the miner and hash it.
something like this: hash(previous_block_hash + Grain_adress).
The greedy miner would first have to search for a proper Grain adress for his miner in order to receive the nex superblock.
Maybe you can design it to be very difficult to find the next proper adress for the superblock, like:
if hash(previous_block_hash + Grain_adress) contains "99999" = superblock
You could also add a superblock difficulty:
if no superblocks are found for a long time, the superblockdifficulty goes down, lets say from must_contain = "99999" to must_contain to "9999".
You could make it very very hard for a block to be a superblock, but every single block could be a superblock and the greedy miner would be fucked.
lets call it: "Proof of luck".
You can't do this, as the computation needs to be exactly the same for all clients, that's where the network agree and form the blockchain. So you can't take Grain address into it.
Every client in the network can read the adress of the blockfinder from the transaction in the block or not?
You would verify a block by checking the adress of the blockfinder from the coinbase transaction and not by your own adress.
And you need to check the transactions. If not, then a miner could add any amount of coins to the coinbase transaction.
You can do that with the last transaction, related to the block creation. But there's no diff than you do it with last block hash. It's just a random number hash, you combine different values or not, no difference there. Anyone who want to write a program to check that can do exactly what you do in the client. No additional protection or encryption.
There is a difference, vecause every miner has a different adress.
The greedy miner cant just start to mine, if the last block was lucky, because the blocks are no longer lucky, the miner adress is now lucky or unlucky.
He must have a lucky adress in order to generate a valid coinbase transaction with x64 amount of coins.
In order to to generate a valid x64 coinbase transaction everytime, he first needs to search for a lucky adress.
The normal miner will just mine with the same adress everytime and be hoping to get lucky.
If you made it very hard to find a valid proof of luck, then the greedy miner cant profit from his permanent search for the lucky adress.
If searching for a adress, that can solve if hash(previous_block_hash + Grain_adress) contains "99999" = superblock (or something like this) would take longer, than the average block time, then the search for the lucky adress would be pointless.
The verificaton could work like this:
0. Current block is #230000.
1. Miner has adress 9T5x6h164qpqk3s3Lunq7uAVLapQNCF7wj
2. Miner generates his proof of luck: proof_of_luck_hash = hash(hash of block_#23000 + 9T5x6h164qpqk3s3Lunq7uAVLapQNCF7wj)
3. Miner checks for superblock: if proof_of_luck_hash contains "99999" = superblock // in this case the proof_of_luck_hash containes the string "99999" so the proof of luck is valide, if not, then the miner can only create a valid transaction with 1x amount of coins, not x64 to the adress 9T5x6h164qpqk3s3Lunq7uAVLapQNCF7wj.
4. Miner makes coinbase transaction with 64x amount coins to adress 9T5x6h164qpqk3s3Lunq7uAVLapQNCF7wj and generates PoW.
5. Miner finds block #230001 and broadcasts it.
6. Client A receives the block #230001.
7. Client A generates the proof of luck for the block #23001 to be verified: proof_of_luck_hash = hash(hash of block_#23000 + adress of coinbase transaction_of_block_#230001) // adress of coinbase transaction is 9T5x6h164qpqk3s3Lunq7uAVLapQNCF7wj
8. Client A verifies the superblock: if proof_of_luck_hash contains "99999" = superblock // the proof_of_luck_hash containes the string "99999", so it is verified as a superblock and the transaction is valid.
If the coinbase transaction would have only the normal 1x amount of coins and proof_of_luck_hash would not cointain "99999" (proof of work invalid), then the block would be also valid.
If proof_of_luck_hash would not cointain "99999" and the coinbase transaction would have 64x amount of coins (superblock), then the block would be invalid.
I am not a mathematician in a pure meaning of this term, so I might be mistaken but I see no statistical difference between the present algorithm and the one proposed by you. In your proposal the greedy miner need to do only two extra computations per block: the addition and hashing. He need not to find any lucky address but he would use the same address all the time. Then he get the same number of bonus blocks as he has now.
