@ir.hn
I do admit that it is not an easy piece of cake when you get into implementation details , or even the design outlines, directly. But things are changing so fast in blockchain and developments are trending in so many false directions ... We have to be simultaneously perfect and quick. Hell of a job ...
Realising this situation, I deliberately chose to present this idea, from a technical point of view, to accelerate technical contributions. Yet, I believe you would be able find some useful general ideas following this topic.
Here I try to give a more general and conceptual vision, I wish it would help:
In centralized pool mining that has been the dominant practice for years, miners have no control on the blocks, they receive it from the server, ready to 'mine' which now is about finding a nonce that causes the hash of the block to be 'good enough' to be passed back as a share to the server.
The threshold of what is considered to be
good enough is contracted between miner and the pool server and has almost nothing to do with the blockchain difficulty, it is just considered to be thousands to millions of times lower.
Pool server in turn, besides validating and keeping track of submitted shares, checks whether luckily, one of them is so much good (thousands or millions times better than what the trivial contracted difficulty has forced miner to find a nonce for) to be relayed as a freshly found block and added to the blockchain.
If so, the pool will get both block reward and transaction fees immediately. Shares of the miners who participated in this process, all of them and not only the one who has found the golden nonce, will be payed using one of the several common methods for pool accounting, later.
Miners desperately need such a mechanism to avoid waiting for years to find one block (if any) and pools with enough number of submitted shares are expected to be lucky very frequently.
This is a bad situation for security of the network because number of parties who actually decide about the transaction set to be included in each block and (probably) added to the blockchain is dangerously small. This is a centralization threat and any true bitcoiner should be against it, unquestionably.
Actually, as of this writing, 5 major bitcoin mining pools could easily form a cartel that would have >50% majority needed to perform occasional and intentional double spend attacks against people, for the least.
As I have briefly described in my article, I believe PoW can be improved to eliminate the miner's above mentioned need to pool mining. In this proposal this is done by reducing the difficulty hundreds of thousands times.
This difficulty reduction is achieved by tweaking classical PoW to let miners converge on a common set of transactions and submit their found results to the network primarily and wait until their submitted shares have been summarized in a finalized block to be permanently added to the network. In
In classical PoW it is done upside down, a finalized block is prepared from the first beginning, when the 'nonce hunt' is going to start, no cooperation, no contribution, this is a gap that maliciously is filled by pools and I believe can be totally eliminated by PoCW, this proposal.