Topic: Idea for an altcoin: 3-way hybrid PoW - page 2. (Read 2378 times)
This seems like a good idea and I think it's high time for some developer to try it out. A coin with different Algos and a combination of POS ans POW. And yes, the fact of Chinese miners controlling a majority of mining power of bitcoin is not good and something must be done to reduce it. It would be great if we can pitch this idea to a group of well know developers in the Crypto space and ask them to build an altcoin following the suggestions of theymos. I like this and wish it all the best!
4-way hybrid PoW
- The SHA-3 group (centralized ASIC miners pool)
- The PoS group I = early adopters = whales (masternodes)
- The cuckoo group = botnet operators (another centralized pool or 9)
- The PoS group II = small fish = home PC operators (crowd consensus)
[basically Myriad + "Follow the satoshi" PoS method]
----
1. could it be possible insert super check points into the BTC chain? or others.
2. make it data heavy and fast ... PoS group I handles that .... dump the bloat off at the checkpoints.
- The SHA-3 group (centralized ASIC miners pool)
- The PoS group I = early adopters = whales (masternodes)
- The cuckoo group = botnet operators (another centralized pool or 9)
- The PoS group II = small fish = home PC operators (crowd consensus)
[basically Myriad + "Follow the satoshi" PoS method]
----
1. could it be possible insert super check points into the BTC chain? or others.
2. make it data heavy and fast ... PoS group I handles that .... dump the bloat off at the checkpoints.
Interesting idea. I like the multiple algorithms as a way to offset asic dominance but this would probably see it's way in one or more altcoins, to tests the concept and scalability, rather than being added to the Bitcoin mainnet.
I think it is definitely a concept worth trying and would make this coin stand out from all of the shitcoins released every day.
I think it is definitely a concept worth trying and would make this coin stand out from all of the shitcoins released every day.
Do it!
Are you planning to launch a new altcoin for this forum? 
I think some sort of full POS system (possibly with POW for initial distribution), that manages to provide enough incentive to participate without devaluing the coin thru hyper inflation may be the ticket ere.
Hmm,
It looks like you want to create a grey council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Council
In Time , PoS will always become the preferred method, as Economically PoW becomes impractical or completely centralized.
Which will cause the following concern: Security analysis of PoW/PoS hybrids with low PoW reward by Rat4
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/security-analysis-of-powpos-hybrids-with-low-pow-reward-551861
Coin with multiple PoW algos is Myriadcoin
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annxmy-myriad-multi-algo-fair-secure-483515
Problem is convincing the Chinese Mining Pools that currently dominate BTC, to go for the change as it weakens their already dominate control of BTC.
From a Security Standpoint, Go Full PoS only or Multiple PoW Algos , network security would be easier to maintain and fewer attack vectors.
Odds are you may get the miners to agree to mining additional PoW algos much more readily than adding PoS.
Incorporating a Dash MasterNode Style System into BTC , to handle the node issues would give you another player in your gray council.
(Does not need anon, but take a % of BTC from the miner's generated coins to spread out BTC)
It looks like you want to create a grey council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Council
In Time , PoS will always become the preferred method, as Economically PoW becomes impractical or completely centralized.
Which will cause the following concern: Security analysis of PoW/PoS hybrids with low PoW reward by Rat4
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/security-analysis-of-powpos-hybrids-with-low-pow-reward-551861
Coin with multiple PoW algos is Myriadcoin
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annxmy-myriad-multi-algo-fair-secure-483515
Problem is convincing the Chinese Mining Pools that currently dominate BTC, to go for the change as it weakens their already dominate control of BTC.
From a Security Standpoint, Go Full PoS only or Multiple PoW Algos , network security would be easier to maintain and fewer attack vectors.
Odds are you may get the miners to agree to mining additional PoW algos much more readily than adding PoS.
Incorporating a Dash MasterNode Style System into BTC , to handle the node issues would give you another player in your gray council.
(Does not need anon, but take a % of BTC from the miner's generated coins to spread out BTC)
I've casually proposed this for Bitcoin in the past, but there's no way that something as experimental as this would ever be done in Bitcoin without at least a successful altcoin example, so it'd be cool to see it implemented in an altcoin, if any altcoin devs are interested. I have not rigorously examined this scheme for any flaw, so maybe it won't work well at all, but maybe it will.
One problem in Bitcoin is mining centralization. To solve this, I propose that the PoW be changed to the following:
- If the block height mod 4 is 0, the PoW for that block is SHA-3 (or similar), an ASIC-friendly algorithm.
- If the block height mod 4 is 1, the "PoW" for that block is "follow the satoshi", a form of proof-of-stake described in the Proof of Activity paper.
- If the block height mod 4 is 2, the PoW for that block is cuckoo, a very ASIC-unfriendly algorithm.
- If the block height mod 4 is 3, the "PoW" for that block is again "follow the satoshi".
Most likely:
- The SHA-3 group will be controlled mainly by a handful of centralized ASIC miners as is the case with mining in Bitcoin today.
- The cuckoo group will be controlled mainly by a handful of botnet operators, though ordinary users might also participate to some extent.
- The PoS group will be controlled mainly by a handful of early adopters, though ordinary users might also participate to some extent.
However, importantly, all three groups need to cooperate in order to do anything majorly evil such as rewriting many past blocks. And since the three groups seem very likely to be independent, this significantly increases the decentralization and security of the system's mining.
The reason that PoS appears twice is that if you had a PoW step followed by a PoW step, the miners in the first PoW group would be incentivized to try redoing the block in their group whenever a block is solved, since otherwise they just have to wait. Adding a quick PoS block after each PoW step makes this less likely to succeed.
There should be two PoW difficulties: one based on steps 0 and 1, and one based on steps 2 and 3. PoW must be combined with PoS in the difficulty calculation because the nature of "follow the satoshi" leads to blocks often failing due to offline nodes in PoS, and this must be taken into account in the difficulty calculation.
"Follow the satoshi" is a particularly good PoS method because you can only participate if you run an actual full node. There's no way to cheat. As suggested by the Proof of Activity paper, participating in PoS using a particular address should require the participant to have the ability to spend at least a large percentage of the address's coins. The ability to risklessly delegate PoS authority leads to pooled PoS, an undesirable point of centralization.
Since PoS appears twice, it should have to redistribute at least half of its total block rewards to steps 0 and 2. It might also be desirable to change the reward distributions even more, since ASIC miners will probably be much more expensive than cuckoo miners, which will certainly be much more expensive than PoS miners. Redistribution of the mining reward can be done in a simple way by requiring that a block with x coins of total reward (subsidy + fees) must be accompanied by a transaction that spends the entire total reward, and this transaction must have a fee of at least y% * x. The next block will then include this transaction, taking its fees, and maybe again redistributing the fees if necessary.
One problem in Bitcoin is mining centralization. To solve this, I propose that the PoW be changed to the following:
- If the block height mod 4 is 0, the PoW for that block is SHA-3 (or similar), an ASIC-friendly algorithm.
- If the block height mod 4 is 1, the "PoW" for that block is "follow the satoshi", a form of proof-of-stake described in the Proof of Activity paper.
- If the block height mod 4 is 2, the PoW for that block is cuckoo, a very ASIC-unfriendly algorithm.
- If the block height mod 4 is 3, the "PoW" for that block is again "follow the satoshi".
Most likely:
- The SHA-3 group will be controlled mainly by a handful of centralized ASIC miners as is the case with mining in Bitcoin today.
- The cuckoo group will be controlled mainly by a handful of botnet operators, though ordinary users might also participate to some extent.
- The PoS group will be controlled mainly by a handful of early adopters, though ordinary users might also participate to some extent.
However, importantly, all three groups need to cooperate in order to do anything majorly evil such as rewriting many past blocks. And since the three groups seem very likely to be independent, this significantly increases the decentralization and security of the system's mining.
The reason that PoS appears twice is that if you had a PoW step followed by a PoW step, the miners in the first PoW group would be incentivized to try redoing the block in their group whenever a block is solved, since otherwise they just have to wait. Adding a quick PoS block after each PoW step makes this less likely to succeed.
There should be two PoW difficulties: one based on steps 0 and 1, and one based on steps 2 and 3. PoW must be combined with PoS in the difficulty calculation because the nature of "follow the satoshi" leads to blocks often failing due to offline nodes in PoS, and this must be taken into account in the difficulty calculation.
"Follow the satoshi" is a particularly good PoS method because you can only participate if you run an actual full node. There's no way to cheat. As suggested by the Proof of Activity paper, participating in PoS using a particular address should require the participant to have the ability to spend at least a large percentage of the address's coins. The ability to risklessly delegate PoS authority leads to pooled PoS, an undesirable point of centralization.
Since PoS appears twice, it should have to redistribute at least half of its total block rewards to steps 0 and 2. It might also be desirable to change the reward distributions even more, since ASIC miners will probably be much more expensive than cuckoo miners, which will certainly be much more expensive than PoS miners. Redistribution of the mining reward can be done in a simple way by requiring that a block with x coins of total reward (subsidy + fees) must be accompanied by a transaction that spends the entire total reward, and this transaction must have a fee of at least y% * x. The next block will then include this transaction, taking its fees, and maybe again redistributing the fees if necessary.
Jump to: