I am still searching for the flaws in another idea I have for an improvement to Proof-of-Work. I had mentioned this is in a prior discussion with monsterer in my thread.

The idea is every transaction must include a PoW share.

There are many details to getting this correct and I believe it ties in with enabling instant transactions as well. But I need to write this all down and make sure there isn't a flaw.

My helicopter perspective thoughts are that it can force the difficulty high enough that mining becomes unprofitable (assuming debasement is a small fixed percentage say 1%). This will drive away the professional miners and thus stop the dumping of coins which drives the price down. It will also limit the electricity cost per transaction to some minuscule amount and not Bitcoin's $16 per transaction electricity cost. I see now my 2013 thread Spiraling Transaction Fees concept is finally getting serious attention.

Thus hopefully it can make it much more difficult for the government to regulate mining.

This is probably my last attempt at a solution. Seems I was thinking about this in the past and I thought it was flawed because servers have to aggregate data for transaction signers and I thought these could be targeted by the government or otherwise centralized. But what remains true is that if the transaction signers have more PoW hashrate than any miners the government can regulate/control, then the permissionless principle seems to hold.

Since mining becomes unprofitable then selfish mining attacks don't matter.

I think this is the most promising direction that still remains for me. Everything else looks like a waste of time.

Temporarily allow inconsistency where the risk is very low and/or limit access to a single partition for each UTXO (different UTXO limited to different partitions). Then full resolution at block confirmation time. Also by employing partitions interblock, the data that needs to be propagated on block announcement is radically reduced, thus the block period can be significantly reduced without driving up the orphan rate to unacceptable levels.

The thing was halting my programming lately is I wasn't satisfied that I had solved the permissionless and decentralization principles. But I think sending PoW with each transaction solves it, but I need to go over all the details again to make sure I haven't missed something.

If I feel I have the Bitcoin killer and something that can really help the world, then I will be motivated to program. I don't want to waste my effort. I am in extremely bad situation in my life and I can't afford to go down any nonproductive forks at this juncture of my life.

Edit: for me if there isn't a very viable chance of maintaining decentralization, then I am not motivated to code it. I feel with near certainty that Bitcoin (and other coins that employ Satoshi's PoW design, e.g. Monero) is headed towards centralization and 51+% control (even if the block size isn't increased). And for the reasons stated upthread, I view PoS (and DPOS) as non-viable direction to invest my effort long-term (they have served some transitionary role in crypto given Satoshi's design is also flawed).

PoW doesn't insure permissionless nor decentralized if mining is inherently centralizing.

There are many reasons that Satoshi's design is centralizing. One is for example that mining is profitable, thus there is a competition to drive difficulty higher and higher such that EACH transaction costs ~$10 in electricity (which is currently paid by mining the investors as professional miners who have loans from the oligarchy+banksters mine with huge farms near hydropower at $50 per BTC cost and sell all that they mine). Even if no debasement was paid to miners, they have a monopoly on transactions added to blocks, so they can charge what ever transaction fees they want if they control 51% of the hashrate. It begs for a oligarchy on mining to develop (which is the direction it appears to be headed and normally government steps in with regulation to aid the oligarchy).

And increasing the transactions per block also forces centralization, thus furthering a trend towards oligarchy control, so saying cost per transaction will fall as transaction rate increases is only true if the resultant oligarchy decides to go for market share first (perhaps as a longer-term strategy of 666 enslavement and world government trend).

Also since mining is only done for profit, then pools are required to deal with huge variance of winning a block for typical (non oligarchy) miners. Pools centralize mining, even if we argue that miners can switch pools, the government can more easily target the pools even if miners switch since by definition there will never be as many pools as miners (not even close).

There are many flaws in Satoshi's design which make it entirely broken from my view. I can't support Bitcoin (nor Monero). I support things that I feel enthusiastically could work out well for mankind and be successful. Bitcoin will succeed only because it is fitting in well with the existing oligarchy's (e.g. Peter Thiel) plans for world domination (and that includes that an illusion of decentralization will persist long enough for the centralization to finally take hold).


I had thought so, but I think I explained in this thread how to break the impasse I thought I had hit. But I reiterate I will go over all the details when I am offline to see if I haven't missed something in my thought process while I am writing here online.