there is always debate between proof of work and proof of stake and indeed you are all already know the side effect by choosing one of those,
but we can't blame the all Proof of Work take example bitcoin litecoin and dashcoin has their own ASIC meaning is very efficient compared to GPU and CPU mining and the end of the day transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy is everywhere.
and the Proof of Stake is evolving too there is plain PoS, there is Delegated PoS there is Masternode and etc right
Topic: Issues with Proof-of-Work - page 2. (Read 875 times)
The only issues with proof of work is it will be attacked for polluting the environment and when more people are mining that will only increase the concern and attacks by the media. The other thing is it requires a big investment to compete against the difficult of the network which means it will only be rich companies and people who will be able to mine in the future if that is not the case already. It makes the mining side centralized because normal people will not be able to afford the equipment which could mean that rich people could scheme to reject certain transactions or blocks unless a high fee is paid.
after doing dev work with ethereum and bitcoin it seems that both consensus options are blatantly fairly flawed. POW has obvious scaling issues and POS seems like a bandaid solution with wealthy people automatically being allocated more currency through an infinitely compounding cycle. Is the crypto/blockchain community not open to new type of consensus? It seems like POW and POS just keep getting updated rather than addressing the real issue and switching base mechanisms. Do others just not see issues with POW or POS?
PoW may have stagnated when it comes to inventing more useful types of work to prove. But this doesn't mean that we should head for something even more experimental.
@franky1
since presence is based in proportional participation and network communication the block rewards process is separate from the block verification/proposal process. The network first agrees on the most ideal/efficient block and based on the network presence within that block the rewards are distributed accordingly. This means even if node A is somehow pooled and responsible for every block proposal, block rewards will be distributed amongst participating nodes based on each nodes agreed presence within the proposed block.
What platform would you recommend for starting a community to further discuss it?
since presence is based in proportional participation and network communication the block rewards process is separate from the block verification/proposal process. The network first agrees on the most ideal/efficient block and based on the network presence within that block the rewards are distributed accordingly. This means even if node A is somehow pooled and responsible for every block proposal, block rewards will be distributed amongst participating nodes based on each nodes agreed presence within the proposed block.
What platform would you recommend for starting a community to further discuss it?
your trying to re-invent the wheel. so any platform will do. but the most participation of discussion of your type would be found in the altcoin culture/category of this forum
this bitcoin category is meant to only want to discuss bitcoin stuff, although some certain people do try to make it all about their other subnetwork promotions
but they too should be in the altcoin network section too because their payment system does not emulate how bitcoin functions even if they brand tag it as 'bitcoin'
..
as for your assumptions that "the network" you envision will self mitigate its own method. no code is needed meaning you ned to write it. you ned to come up with the methodology where it avoids certain peers from grouping up into clusters good luck funding a method to identify that certain nodes are not just 1 guy with 1000 nodes or where your node only has 100 connections and most of them are from a common peer cluster that gossiped(seeded) a list of known 100 nodes thus form their own cluster/echo chamber of only hearing each other first
(its more about the peer IP connection/identity decider. rather then the latter block reward split mechanism thats the problem when it comes to trying to mitigate pooling/clustering)
@franky1
since presence is based in proportional participation and network communication the block rewards process is separate from the block verification/proposal process. The network first agrees on the most ideal/efficient block and based on the network presence within that block the rewards are distributed accordingly. This means even if node A is somehow pooled and responsible for every block proposal, block rewards will be distributed amongst participating nodes based on each nodes agreed presence within the proposed block.
What platform would you recommend for starting a community to further discuss it?
since presence is based in proportional participation and network communication the block rewards process is separate from the block verification/proposal process. The network first agrees on the most ideal/efficient block and based on the network presence within that block the rewards are distributed accordingly. This means even if node A is somehow pooled and responsible for every block proposal, block rewards will be distributed amongst participating nodes based on each nodes agreed presence within the proposed block.
What platform would you recommend for starting a community to further discuss it?
issues with everyone throwing out a candidate block with no cost. is that everyone can send out a candidate block in seconds
you then find that clusters of nodes peer connect into subgroups of each other
where you have clusters all connecting to node A hearing mostly group A block which build ontop of that, which varies widely from the data of another cluster hearing another group of relayed transactions and building on that group
where it takes a few layers of 'pending' blocks accumulating confirms from different clusters until you finally get just one stream/chain of blocks with longest height.
you end up holding alot of candidate blocks side by side fighting for height.
thus you end up still having a so called 'pool' of nodes' competing to be the main height winner but with alot od data wastefully being relayed just to fight for height and then orphaning off or re-orging the pending chains(wasting time/data)
you would probably have to find a way (as you say proof of presence) that cant be sybilled, cloned, spoofed or swapped to pretend not to be another 'presence' so that you can trust that one contributer/miner is not just sending out a stream of 10 blocks instantly to win height.
goodluck with that
i say goodluck because only options ultimately is that inside the block data you need to have a true unforgeable identity of a node. which can prove its a unique user(no guy with 1000 nodes) where that block identifies said unique user and bans them from making streams of blocks in a row
which is why in the end everything just resorts back to PoW (cost of work) or PoS (staking a lump of coin)
but if you can truly find a "free" method that does not involve both of these. well you have created a proof that hundreds of thousands of people have failed to do (many have tried)
you then find that clusters of nodes peer connect into subgroups of each other
where you have clusters all connecting to node A hearing mostly group A block which build ontop of that, which varies widely from the data of another cluster hearing another group of relayed transactions and building on that group
where it takes a few layers of 'pending' blocks accumulating confirms from different clusters until you finally get just one stream/chain of blocks with longest height.
you end up holding alot of candidate blocks side by side fighting for height.
thus you end up still having a so called 'pool' of nodes' competing to be the main height winner but with alot od data wastefully being relayed just to fight for height and then orphaning off or re-orging the pending chains(wasting time/data)
you would probably have to find a way (as you say proof of presence) that cant be sybilled, cloned, spoofed or swapped to pretend not to be another 'presence' so that you can trust that one contributer/miner is not just sending out a stream of 10 blocks instantly to win height.
goodluck with that
i say goodluck because only options ultimately is that inside the block data you need to have a true unforgeable identity of a node. which can prove its a unique user(no guy with 1000 nodes) where that block identifies said unique user and bans them from making streams of blocks in a row
which is why in the end everything just resorts back to PoW (cost of work) or PoS (staking a lump of coin)
but if you can truly find a "free" method that does not involve both of these. well you have created a proof that hundreds of thousands of people have failed to do (many have tried)
@franky1
Yes I agree the main issue with having everyone involved is bandwidth. Syndication/pooling risks are a result of bitcoin/POW being permissionless and based in computational power. Using a different mechanism this risk may be minimized or eliminated.
I’m currently working on developing a new mechanism called Proof of Presence built around optimizing network participation and communications. The vast majority of the initial network will be distributed for free as proof of concept. This is also to ensure initial distribution is broad and unbiased and will instantly transition the network to complete decentralization. I was planning on using discord for more detailed communications and community building but I’m open to alternatives as well.
Yes I agree the main issue with having everyone involved is bandwidth. Syndication/pooling risks are a result of bitcoin/POW being permissionless and based in computational power. Using a different mechanism this risk may be minimized or eliminated.
I’m currently working on developing a new mechanism called Proof of Presence built around optimizing network participation and communications. The vast majority of the initial network will be distributed for free as proof of concept. This is also to ensure initial distribution is broad and unbiased and will instantly transition the network to complete decentralization. I was planning on using discord for more detailed communications and community building but I’m open to alternatives as well.
greying it out as its an obvious side show poke the bear to get me to join someones social drama by trying to get me to talk and give links to other topics
@blackhat
oh here it goes again. when doomad gets debunked and shys away in one topic,. clan sister comes along to start social drama in another topic within minutes. pretending there is no game at play, whilst playing the known tactics of the game they play too much
and clan sister then wonders why i gave them a title of madhatter, knowing its a known social drama boring technique done multiple times to become soo notable it deserves a title
i had some hope after you(blackhat) were ready to try to move away from toeing the clan party book and starting to ask questions outside of doomads desires/scripts, where the hope was you were trying to begin to exist outside the clan mindset
but you come back within literal minutes of doomad being debunked(same pattern) trying to start more social drama in a different topic(same pattern).
just stop for once
also if you cant remember the stuff you learned in the last 10days-3 months. from questions you asked in last 10days-3 months.
cant be bothered to even search your own post history of this month as a reminder.. then please take the time.
it becomes a struggle to even hope your ready to learn/ escape the madhatter echo chamber even if some of your underlings are trying harder then you to remember stuff they learned without the madhatter spoonfeeds
but to give you the points about the MAHF and the other poiints where i thought there WAS a slight hope for you by asking questions outside the social drama scripts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5433973.20
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/116327/do-non-segwit-nodes-reject-segwit-transactions-with-invalid-signature
pitty that small step outside the echo chamber didnt last 10 days before you went back to norm madhatter tactics forgetting things you said
no response needed. i already know the usual stuff your about to say
now.. take a couple days. off. dont turn this into a "about franky" topic like doomad tried in another topic.. just to show you can defend him.. (its boring and meaningless)
people want to discuss the stuff of this topic
spend sometime relearning what you forgot about BITCOIN and things that affected BITCOIN and its functions and features which the topics are about
if you are truly ready to escape the madhatter title. stop sounding too much like doomad.. as said briefly to not derail the topic, i noticed windfury is gaining confidence to not sound like him as much.. end of drama enjoy a few days off
@blackhat
oh here it goes again. when doomad gets debunked and shys away in one topic,. clan sister comes along to start social drama in another topic within minutes. pretending there is no game at play, whilst playing the known tactics of the game they play too much
and clan sister then wonders why i gave them a title of madhatter, knowing its a known social drama boring technique done multiple times to become soo notable it deserves a title
i had some hope after you(blackhat) were ready to try to move away from toeing the clan party book and starting to ask questions outside of doomads desires/scripts, where the hope was you were trying to begin to exist outside the clan mindset
but you come back within literal minutes of doomad being debunked(same pattern) trying to start more social drama in a different topic(same pattern).
just stop for once
also if you cant remember the stuff you learned in the last 10days-3 months. from questions you asked in last 10days-3 months.
cant be bothered to even search your own post history of this month as a reminder.. then please take the time.
it becomes a struggle to even hope your ready to learn/ escape the madhatter echo chamber even if some of your underlings are trying harder then you to remember stuff they learned without the madhatter spoonfeeds
but to give you the points about the MAHF and the other poiints where i thought there WAS a slight hope for you by asking questions outside the social drama scripts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5433973.20
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/116327/do-non-segwit-nodes-reject-segwit-transactions-with-invalid-signature
pitty that small step outside the echo chamber didnt last 10 days before you went back to norm madhatter tactics forgetting things you said
no response needed. i already know the usual stuff your about to say
now.. take a couple days. off. dont turn this into a "about franky" topic like doomad tried in another topic.. just to show you can defend him.. (its boring and meaningless)
people want to discuss the stuff of this topic
spend sometime relearning what you forgot about BITCOIN and things that affected BITCOIN and its functions and features which the topics are about
if you are truly ready to escape the madhatter title. stop sounding too much like doomad.. as said briefly to not derail the topic, i noticed windfury is gaining confidence to not sound like him as much.. end of drama enjoy a few days off
POW has obvious scaling issues
Proof-of-Work has NOTHING to do with scaling. Please don't spread FUD. Satoshi choose PoW because it was the only option available in 2008 for what he wanted.
It's, unfortunately for you, still the only you are now showing you are doing some research along with the examples in the MAHF topic. seems you are gaining confidence to do your own research and break away/not rely on the social spoonfeeds of the madhatter group(doomad/blackhat)
What MAHF topic, and how am I even related in this?
@leg-end
yep windfury is correct and its why vitalik decided to call the smallest eth unit a wei many years ago, as he was always favouring/inspired to go the PoS route and follow the path of wei-dai for years, he just had to use PoW for eth first to create a community of interest due to PoW's good value policy(which PoS doesnt have). so he had to snare greed/value interest of people first to build the community before converting the community to vitalik long plan wishes(wait for the market speculation correction DOWN when he finally allows the code to un-stake)
@windfury
you are now showing you are doing some research along with the examples in the MAHF topic. seems you are gaining confidence to do your own research and break away/not rely on the social spoonfeeds of the madhatter group(doomad/blackhat)
so . for now. ill refrain from calling you a default idiot. as long as you keep up the confidence to do your own research
do it for no one else, not even me. do it for your own mental wellness and your own fact finding efforts
do not fear the time it takes to do the research because even though it takes time. its less time then the years wasted finding social drama reasons to refuse to do the research for yourself
yep windfury is correct and its why vitalik decided to call the smallest eth unit a wei many years ago, as he was always favouring/inspired to go the PoS route and follow the path of wei-dai for years, he just had to use PoW for eth first to create a community of interest due to PoW's good value policy(which PoS doesnt have). so he had to snare greed/value interest of people first to build the community before converting the community to vitalik long plan wishes(wait for the market speculation correction DOWN when he finally allows the code to un-stake)
@windfury
you are now showing you are doing some research along with the examples in the MAHF topic. seems you are gaining confidence to do your own research and break away/not rely on the social spoonfeeds of the madhatter group(doomad/blackhat)
so . for now. ill refrain from calling you a default idiot. as long as you keep up the confidence to do your own research
do it for no one else, not even me. do it for your own mental wellness and your own fact finding efforts
do not fear the time it takes to do the research because even though it takes time. its less time then the years wasted finding social drama reasons to refuse to do the research for yourself
@windfury
POW is a mechanism to make an expensive id
NO where did i say useless (dont even start more social drama by injecting your own words)
I was just merely making the reason clearer for the newbies, and the plebs like me, franky. I never said you were doing something in this topic.
satoshi chose PoW instead of PoS because
Incorrect,
Satoshi choose PoW because it was the only option available in 2008 for what he wanted.
Satoshi chose POW because it was the only FEASIBLE option available, and it STILL currently remains the only feasible option right now.
Plus in case many of you forgot, Wei Dai's B-Money experimented with a form of Proof Of Stake, I believe it was the first to resemble a POS coin, but later said it was impractical because it couldn't solve the double-spend problem.
Quote
Since the servers must be trusted to a degree, some mechanism is needed to
keep them honest. Each server is required to deposit a certain amount of
money in a special account to be used as potential fines or rewards for
proof of misconduct.
http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt
after doing dev work with ethereum and bitcoin it seems that both consensus options are blatantly fairly flawed. POW has obvious scaling issues and POS seems like a bandaid solution with wealthy people automatically being allocated more currency through an infinitely compounding cycle. Is the crypto/blockchain community not open to new type of consensus? It seems like POW and POS just keep getting updated rather than addressing the real issue and switching base mechanisms. Do others just not see issues with POW or POS?
Not sure how POW is connected with scaling issues? What exactly do you mean? Please elaborate.
With POS it's sort of clear - selling/giving control of the blockchain to billionaires/corporations. Never gonna happen to Bitcoin (hopefully). With the transition to POS, ETH was a shitcoin since day 1 but after POS it turned into a complete shitshow.
@leg-end
you think that PoW was the only mechanism ever imagined in the cypherpunks idea house pre 2009
there were many. just because they were not called "PoS":
concepts of selected/random individuals to sign a block of data at no cost.
concepts of unit/value penalty for rule breaking
did exist
there is a reason satoshi ignored those ideas and went for PoW instead
you think that PoW was the only mechanism ever imagined in the cypherpunks idea house pre 2009
there were many. just because they were not called "PoS":
concepts of selected/random individuals to sign a block of data at no cost.
concepts of unit/value penalty for rule breaking
did exist
there is a reason satoshi ignored those ideas and went for PoW instead
satoshi chose PoW instead of PoS because
Incorrect,
Satoshi choose PoW because it was the only option available in 2008 for what he wanted.
Satoshi left bitcoin behind in 2011.
https://robbreport.com/lifestyle/finance/bitcoin-founder-satoshi-nakamoto-1234613022/
Quote from: Satoshi
On April 23, 2011, he sent a farewell email to a fellow Bitcoin developer. “I’ve moved on to other things
https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-history-and-evolution-of-proof-of-stake
Quote
Proof of Stake (PoS) was first introduced in a paper by Sunny King and Scott Nadal in 2012 and intended to solve the problem of Bitcoin mining’s high energy consumption.
Satoshi left in 2011 , Proof of Stake concept was founded in 2012.
He never choose PoW over PoS, because he had no knowledge of the newer more efficient superior PoS technology.
Had he not dropped the bitcoin community like they were foul-smelling excrement in 2011,
he might have stay long enough to replace that worthless proof of waste algorithm, that the btc cultists hold on to for pure stupidity stake.
* Satoshi believe in using program coded checkpoints to secure the blockchain, the btc cultists that took over after him quit using that security feature.*
Not only is PoW a waste of energy and a growing environmental disaster, an centralized *only 2 mining pools control over 51% of the hash rate *
it's Noise Pollution alone is getting communities to ask their governments to start banning it.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/us/north-carolina-crypto-mine-noise-weir-wxc/index.html
Quote
But then she heard the sound of crypto,
a noise that neighbor Mike Lugiewicz describes as “a small jet that never leaves” and her ambivalence turned into activism.
The racket was coming from stacks and stacks of computer servers and cooling fans,
mysteriously set up in a few acres of open farm field down on Harshaw Road.
Once they fired up and the noise started bouncing around their Blue Ridge Mountain homes,
sound meters in the Lugiewicz yard showed readings from 55-85 decibels depending on the weather,
but more disturbing than the volume is the fact that the noise never stopped
This unrelenting demand for electricity was one reason China banned cryptocurrency,
touching off a virtual gold rush from Appalachia to New York’s Finger Lakes.
Crypto miners began putting down stakes in places where power is cheap and affordable, and if land use or noise regulations even exist, enforcement is weak.
The mine in Murphy is just one of a dozen in Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina owned by a San Francisco-based company called PrimeBlock, which recently announced $300 million in equity financing and plans to scale up and go public.
But a year and a half after crypto came to this ruby red pocket of Republican retirees and Libertarian life-timers,
anger over the mine helped flip the balance of local power and forced the Board of Commissioners
to officially ask their state and federal officials to
“introduce and champion legislation through the US Congress that would ban
and/or regulate crypto mining operations in the United States of America.”
a noise that neighbor Mike Lugiewicz describes as “a small jet that never leaves” and her ambivalence turned into activism.
The racket was coming from stacks and stacks of computer servers and cooling fans,
mysteriously set up in a few acres of open farm field down on Harshaw Road.
Once they fired up and the noise started bouncing around their Blue Ridge Mountain homes,
sound meters in the Lugiewicz yard showed readings from 55-85 decibels depending on the weather,
but more disturbing than the volume is the fact that the noise never stopped
This unrelenting demand for electricity was one reason China banned cryptocurrency,
touching off a virtual gold rush from Appalachia to New York’s Finger Lakes.
Crypto miners began putting down stakes in places where power is cheap and affordable, and if land use or noise regulations even exist, enforcement is weak.
The mine in Murphy is just one of a dozen in Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina owned by a San Francisco-based company called PrimeBlock, which recently announced $300 million in equity financing and plans to scale up and go public.
But a year and a half after crypto came to this ruby red pocket of Republican retirees and Libertarian life-timers,
anger over the mine helped flip the balance of local power and forced the Board of Commissioners
to officially ask their state and federal officials to
“introduce and champion legislation through the US Congress that would ban
and/or regulate crypto mining operations in the United States of America.”
Proof of Stake Energy Efficient and Space Efficient and Excess Onchain Transaction Capacity and most important if you live near one, Quiet.
that is not a PoW issue
its a usernode issue
where by the usernode would have extra consensus rules in your scheme that:
things go back to "solo mining"
mine in a method that does not allow outside contribution (mining pool/syndication/external efficiency improved device)
this has nothing to do with limitation of PoW
PoW can still be used, but at a weaker difficulty to be managable to make a ID with just CPU power in X timeline(much like 2009 solo mining)
but as just said to prevent history repeating itself you will need another consensus/rule mechanism to prevent syndicating/pooling effort or using devices not CPU rated/internal to nodes device
that is the hard part. again its not related to PoW
trying to prove the ID was created by only the node and nothing helping/supporting it externally is where you need to find a solution for
most things can be emulated. EG faking IP addresses. using GPU instead of CPU multiple devices spoofed as one. one device spoofed as many
PoS does not solve this. because people can easily just run 1000 pc's all signing with the same key to have 1000 attempts of same
or have 1000 pc's with different keys to appear as different users when its actually hidden away that its just 1 person
this is called a sybil attack
satoshi chose PoW as one mechanism feature of making blocks due to the cost/effort.. thus preventing someone from cheaply broadcasting out masses of block prospects/candidates
..
the issue with having 1000 block prospect/candidates is that when a network only deems 4mb is broadcast safe per 10minutes. having a user spam out 1000 block prospect every second. then harms the bandwidth of other user nodes receiving(multiple users) millions of block prospects every second and trying to choose one out of the flood spam of blocks
having a system where only 1 prospect/candidate block is seen every 1-20minutes is safer.. thus having some form of difficulty/cost/inclusion threshold involved in the block creation is a must
its a usernode issue
where by the usernode would have extra consensus rules in your scheme that:
things go back to "solo mining"
mine in a method that does not allow outside contribution (mining pool/syndication/external efficiency improved device)
this has nothing to do with limitation of PoW
PoW can still be used, but at a weaker difficulty to be managable to make a ID with just CPU power in X timeline(much like 2009 solo mining)
but as just said to prevent history repeating itself you will need another consensus/rule mechanism to prevent syndicating/pooling effort or using devices not CPU rated/internal to nodes device
that is the hard part. again its not related to PoW
trying to prove the ID was created by only the node and nothing helping/supporting it externally is where you need to find a solution for
most things can be emulated. EG faking IP addresses. using GPU instead of CPU multiple devices spoofed as one. one device spoofed as many
PoS does not solve this. because people can easily just run 1000 pc's all signing with the same key to have 1000 attempts of same
or have 1000 pc's with different keys to appear as different users when its actually hidden away that its just 1 person
this is called a sybil attack
satoshi chose PoW as one mechanism feature of making blocks due to the cost/effort.. thus preventing someone from cheaply broadcasting out masses of block prospects/candidates
..
the issue with having 1000 block prospect/candidates is that when a network only deems 4mb is broadcast safe per 10minutes. having a user spam out 1000 block prospect every second. then harms the bandwidth of other user nodes receiving(multiple users) millions of block prospects every second and trying to choose one out of the flood spam of blocks
having a system where only 1 prospect/candidate block is seen every 1-20minutes is safer.. thus having some form of difficulty/cost/inclusion threshold involved in the block creation is a must
OP you are the one that is talking about 'proposals'.. POW has nothing to do with that.
however your latest post and hints else where is about proportional representation
i gather you are talking about wanting whole network involvement
but here is the thing again
are you wanting whole network involvement of the POW (this topic is wrote about POW issues after all)
meaning when you say "proposals" you actually mean possible blocks candidates outside of a pooled system?
or is it about whole network usernode involvement in code ruleset decisions(proposals)
..
if you are talking about a system where many nodes can collate transaction lists (each/independently) and secure them with a weaker(independent manageable) ID and broadcast their independent block to the network
you have to factor in how over X years people will find their own way to move away from that (as thats how bitcoin was in 2009) where by they then create mining rigs and asics and start pooling them ..
meaning your attempts is just temporary and end up returning to the same situation again
however your latest post and hints else where is about proportional representation
i gather you are talking about wanting whole network involvement
but here is the thing again
are you wanting whole network involvement of the POW (this topic is wrote about POW issues after all)
meaning when you say "proposals" you actually mean possible blocks candidates outside of a pooled system?
or is it about whole network usernode involvement in code ruleset decisions(proposals)
..
if you are talking about a system where many nodes can collate transaction lists (each/independently) and secure them with a weaker(independent manageable) ID and broadcast their independent block to the network
you have to factor in how over X years people will find their own way to move away from that (as thats how bitcoin was in 2009) where by they then create mining rigs and asics and start pooling them ..
meaning your attempts is just temporary and end up returning to the same situation again
Ah beautiful I think i'm with you now. I'm saying the issue with POW is its designed to minimize the number of solved block IDs(ideally one per block so chain doesn't split). Im also saying ideally a decentralized consensus method would involve the whole network as to get all relevant network perspectives. If the whole network was involved, however, there wouldn't be a need for a POW mechanism anymore. Im referring to a system where every node in the network creates a proposal from their own local transaction pools and the most 'efficient' proposal is automatically spread and verified/confirmed.
and yes mb proposals = possible blocks
I'm not great at turning my thoughts into words so thank you for being patient.
my last post was to windfury.. as stated
moving on to OP's stuff
i tried once to get passed all your mis-use of mechanism wording and function to ask you to get to the crux/summarise what you are saying
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61668951
so
OP you are the one that is talking about 'proposals'.. POW has nothing to do with that.
however your latest post and hints else where is about proportional representation
i gather you are talking about wanting whole network involvement
but here is the thing again
are you wanting whole network involvement of the POW (this topic is wrote about POW issues after all)
meaning when you say "proposals" you actually mean possible blocks candidates outside of a pooled system?
or is it about whole network usernode involvement in code ruleset decisions(proposals)
..
if you are talking about a system where many nodes can collate transaction lists (each/independently) and secure them with a weaker(independent manageable) ID and broadcast their independent block to the network
you have to factor in how over X years people will find their own way to move away from that (as thats how bitcoin was in 2009) where by they then create mining rigs and asics and start pooling them ..
meaning your attempts is just temporary and end up returning to the same situation again
moving on to OP's stuff
i tried once to get passed all your mis-use of mechanism wording and function to ask you to get to the crux/summarise what you are saying
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61668951
so
OP you are the one that is talking about 'proposals'.. POW has nothing to do with that.
however your latest post and hints else where is about proportional representation
i gather you are talking about wanting whole network involvement
but here is the thing again
are you wanting whole network involvement of the POW (this topic is wrote about POW issues after all)
meaning when you say "proposals" you actually mean possible blocks candidates outside of a pooled system?
or is it about whole network usernode involvement in code ruleset decisions(proposals)
..
if you are talking about a system where many nodes can collate transaction lists (each/independently) and secure them with a weaker(independent manageable) ID and broadcast their independent block to the network
you have to factor in how over X years people will find their own way to move away from that (as thats how bitcoin was in 2009) where by they then create mining rigs and asics and start pooling them ..
meaning your attempts is just temporary and end up returning to the same situation again
POW is a mechanism to make an expensive id
NO where did i say useless (dont even start more social drama by injecting your own words)
satoshi chose PoW instead of PoS because Pow is useful for the fact that it has a cost component of making an ID.. its why it has the word "work" in it, becasue it requires effort
the decision was put as a consensus(separate feature) rule.
if the OP is having issues about decisions of timing or if PoS should be used, or if difficulty should be adjusted to CPU rated solving. that is a CONSENSUS issue/debate.. not a PoW debate
PoW does not make decisions. it just makes a strong ID
the choices/decisions are part of consensus debates of what decisions should remain as set hard rules that should not be touched, or things that could be(if done safely without risk, bug, breaks of the network)
NO where did i say useless (dont even start more social drama by injecting your own words)
satoshi chose PoW instead of PoS because Pow is useful for the fact that it has a cost component of making an ID.. its why it has the word "work" in it, becasue it requires effort
the decision was put as a consensus(separate feature) rule.
if the OP is having issues about decisions of timing or if PoS should be used, or if difficulty should be adjusted to CPU rated solving. that is a CONSENSUS issue/debate.. not a PoW debate
PoW does not make decisions. it just makes a strong ID
the choices/decisions are part of consensus debates of what decisions should remain as set hard rules that should not be touched, or things that could be(if done safely without risk, bug, breaks of the network)
Are you reading what I'm saying? I didnt say you said it was useless? I also didnt say to change anything within POS or POW im saying both are not ideal. I also didnt say POW made decisions. You are mostly arguing semantics.
POW Mechanism = POW function that is solved to create Block ID
POW consensus = entire system involving the POW mechanism
It doesnt feel like your even trying to understand what I'm saying your just trying to prove that I'm wrong?
Please reread what I said above regarding proportional representation as that is the root of the issue I'm speaking on.
@windfury
POW is a mechanism to make an expensive id
NO where did i say useless (dont even start more social drama by injecting your own words)
satoshi chose PoW instead of PoS because Pow is useful for the fact that it has a cost component of making an ID.. its why it has the word "work" in it, because it requires effort, which means more work for a malicious user to do to undo such effort, and then re-do and then catch up. to make a malicious persons more expensive effort get any recognition
the decision was put as a consensus(separate feature) rule.
if the OP is having issues about decisions of timing or if PoS should be used, or if difficulty should be adjusted to CPU rated solving. that is a CONSENSUS issue/debate.. not a PoW debate
PoW does not make decisions. it just makes a strong ID
satoshi beautifully patched together many many different mechanisms that all had their functions to create bitcoin
the choices/decisions are part of consensus debates of what decisions should remain as set hard rule that should not be touched, or things that could be(if done safely without risk, bug, breaks of the network) changed
EG the adjustments of difficulty via counts of 'if +/- 2016 blocks per fortnight, adjust difficulty +/- accordingly' are not made by PoW its made by consensus rules in user nodes.. not inside PoW asics
PoW is not about currency issuance.. again currency issuance is not done in an ASIC. its done by user node consensus rules
it doesnt matter of a block has 1 tx or 2000 tx. it doesnt matter if the coin reward is 5000000000sats or 625000000sats. the PoW mechanism still (in simple terms) sha's a sha of the same length
POW is a mechanism to make an expensive id
NO where did i say useless (dont even start more social drama by injecting your own words)
satoshi chose PoW instead of PoS because Pow is useful for the fact that it has a cost component of making an ID.. its why it has the word "work" in it, because it requires effort, which means more work for a malicious user to do to undo such effort, and then re-do and then catch up. to make a malicious persons more expensive effort get any recognition
the decision was put as a consensus(separate feature) rule.
if the OP is having issues about decisions of timing or if PoS should be used, or if difficulty should be adjusted to CPU rated solving. that is a CONSENSUS issue/debate.. not a PoW debate
PoW does not make decisions. it just makes a strong ID
satoshi beautifully patched together many many different mechanisms that all had their functions to create bitcoin
the choices/decisions are part of consensus debates of what decisions should remain as set hard rule that should not be touched, or things that could be(if done safely without risk, bug, breaks of the network) changed
EG the adjustments of difficulty via counts of 'if +/- 2016 blocks per fortnight, adjust difficulty +/- accordingly' are not made by PoW its made by consensus rules in user nodes.. not inside PoW asics
PoW is not about currency issuance.. again currency issuance is not done in an ASIC. its done by user node consensus rules
it doesnt matter of a block has 1 tx or 2000 tx. it doesnt matter if the coin reward is 5000000000sats or 625000000sats. the PoW mechanism still (in simple terms) sha's a sha of the same length
The consensus mechanisms used by Bitcoin and Ethereum, Proof of Work (POW) and Proof of Stake (POS) respectively, do have their own limitations. POW has been criticized for its high energy consumption and scalability issues, while POS has been criticized for its potential centralization of power among wealthy stakeholders.
Jump to: