Yeah but the weighted sum of both work and stake on each block means to doublespend you need lots of work and lots of stake, having just one or the other is way less likely to succed? Maybe Meni and Cunicula can weigh in on this, though likely they figure it was all thoroughly explained in their wiki entries and all the many many threads that argued it all out back and forth to lead ultimately to the wiki entries?
Where were your weird out of the blue approaches during all those months of deep work on how it can be done right?
-MarkM-
Oh well I think that's fairly enough as far as I am concerned if their competing designs are so nice and thorough
why don't they bring out the implementation and prove it to the Market. They could even fork and reuse some of our code if they want and I would be glad of being some help.
Unlike some people their goal does not seem to be to rush to market to make a quick buck without full peer review of their proposals and maybe some kind of ultimate settling upon exactly which approach to implement (or possibly even to try both, in which case which one being tried first would best move forward the whole matter of whether either are quite right enough yet to be ready to move to implementation.
I'd like to hear more constructive opinions instead. Please keep in mind our goal is to solve energy efficiency instead of implementing someone else's ideas.
Merged mining. The energy is already spent, it is not going to stop being spent, so it makes more sense to do more with it than to come up with more ways to use more energy.
Properly set up proof of stake + proof of work combo should adequately protect it from being victimised by merged miners compared to the way some chains have found enabling merged mining led to their being attacked rather than secured.
I do wonder though how effective proof of stake can be if stake is obtained by using work to mine. Seems like miners maybe can retain superior stake simply by only selling a minority of coins...
-MarkM-
