Quote from: CIYAM on February 05, 2015, 05:53:10 PM

Without modification to the code you'd need different ports but my point is not that we want two "identical" blockchain systems as any major problem would presumably hit both of them (i.e. it would be better to have different blockchains that work on different consensus mechanisms).

My concerns with replacing POW and consensus mechanisms are with the following:

1) Trust concerning the security of money?
http://szabo.best.vwh.net/ttps.html

2) The crucial Byzantine-replicated chain-of-signed-transactions?
http://szabo.best.vwh.net/securetitle.html

Hal Finneys RPOW that is used to solve the Byzantine Generals Problem, a problem in ordinary computing that demonstrates through game theory how a group of potential co-operators can come to the best consensus even with the possibility of having malicious operators among them.
http://cryptome.org/rpow.htm
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-dawn-of-trustworthy-computing.html

A proof-of-work that is a node in the Byzantine-resilient peer-to-peer system to lessen the threat of an untrustworthy party controlling the majority of nodes and thus corrupting a number of important security features.
http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
http://cryptome.org/rpow.htm
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs614/2004sp/papers/lsp82.pdf

Does your new paper contain the advance in technology and knowledge that is needed to produce a truely trusted solution that equals or surpasses the security of proof-of-work and Nakamoto Consensus?