As far as the thread goes, many people have made similar claims before. Their proposals have inevitably turned out to banal rehashings of more or less obvious ideas that the Bitcoin community considered and rejected as far back as 2010 because they don't respect some critical element of what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin that the proposer themselves wasn't aware of as a result of so much bitcoin promotional material giving an incomplete view of the system. The most common things I've seen such proposals do is introduce unfounded third-party trust (usually in miners, sometimes in other random node operators) and in doing so eliminate the system's trustlessness.
Regardless, instead of saying that you have an idea that achieves some grand effect, you should simply publish the idea. Crowing about it just burns your and everyone else's time without making the world a better place or having an opportunity to improve your understanding.
Agreed. I will be publishing my paper very shortly in this same thread.
Gmaxwell, since you seem to be an old hand. Let me convince you super quick as to how the solution works.
Important statement #1 :
Ask yourself from a 40,000 feet view.
What is a currency?
A currency is something that is pegged to a base value Like Gold. All the scaling issues of blockchains start at the coin base. Since PoW is NOT reusable, one simply has to issue a coin base equal to the amount of work that they have performed.
For eg. Let's assume the base target is 100. If someone finds a nonce to create a hash that has a target below 100, he's issued let's say 1 coin. If someone spends double the amount of hash power, they have to be issued 2 coins. i.e. the coin base shouldn't be fixed. What this means is that all chains following this consensus have an equal store of value hence facilitating inter-chain transfers at face value.
