...
the goal was to eventually accomodate as many PoS blocks as possible kept one minute apart on average. But also to keep PoW blocks at 10 minute spacing. That would one day accomplish ultimate decentralization with proof-of-work "checkpointing" every 10 minutes.
How, in code could one accomplish a 10 minute average PoW block period, I wonder? If the desire is 9 (up to 9?) PoS blocks, then the code would have to sense the 8 (9 -1) minutes since the last PoW block, and then start PoW-ing on the latest PoS block and on the average, solve for it in 1 minute?
Such type of block spacing calculation is already coded. Again,
Link. It's just that blocks sequences with fair, community composition don't score enough chaintrust to be considered "main" by peers.
...
Perhaps the code could "cook" a PoS block if no PoS (or PoW) one appeared after one minute, "randomly" rewarding someone or no one with a minimum PoS amount, whatever that is? Perhaps a minimum reward to the development team to goad them on to greater heights so that the coin will become popular enough that the minimum reward blocks would not be necessary? Perhaps those rewards could go towards funding a new feature, like the built in explorer or the live price display (LOL).
Cooking can be referred to mining or minting. We could also proof-of-stake cook more often, if our blocks wouldn't be ignored.
And what if main chef decides to ignore transactions?
There could be other problems too, depending on addressing issues with small PoS blocks.
What probelems are there with PoS blocks that are too small? Is it some kind of flooding the block chain with "dust" as it were?
Described
here. I am just not sure if presumption about PoS blocks with more stake ever got more trust than those with small stake.