Feel free to point me to any publication that will explain to me another way of doing it. Since you are about to launch, I assume these details have already been sorted out and thus you should have no trouble providing the details.
I will certain mea culpa if you have found a solution. But I am 99% sure you have not. Once you provide the detailed publication, I can zero in on detailing to you what is your flaw. Or mea culpa if you've discovered something I didn't anticipate.
Note the above quote is a simplified way of stating the many possible ways I've analyzed how a DAG might work, so even if you are doing something slightly different from your pespective, I think I will have already considered what you are doing (I didn't want to write a book here).
99% is fine, I thought you had been sure on 100%, this is why I made the post.
I did forget to mention on the DAG post, that PoW can be aggregated along with each transaction so that the chain of the DAG with the longest PoW is the unambiguous consensus authority (probably what you mean by "energy" in quoted post below). Then it is a variant of what
I proposed as an idea of improving on Satoshi's PoW scheme.
Nevertheless I can't see that this variant has any advantages over the one I am contemplating that uses blocks. For example, you I think wrote before that Iota can't expand the money supply thus the supply of coins will shrink to zero as users lose passwords over time (apparently Bitcoin and all Proof-of-Stake coins have this same flaw, but not all PoW coins have this flaw). And this will become a serious problem with microtransaction coins because many users will be frivolous. Intense deflation is very destructive to currency.
Also as I had mentioned to you in the past in one of the other threads, there is no force driving consensus. It is possible for cliques to decide it is in their advantage to race each other rather than provide clarity by referencing each other (say for example each clique controls roughly the same amount of hashrate). Whereas, blocks force that there can be only one global partition. And I don't see what advantage getting rid of the blocks provides? There are ways to achieve instant transactions and scaling with blocks. With blocks the calculation of irreversibility is more concrete than with DAG. DAG can't guarantee it will always converge quickly thus it doesn't really guarantee instant transactions, yet once it converges then it might be able to "confirm" a transaction faster than blocks (but I not sure about that since Bitcoin's block period could be reduced if not so much data needs to be sent on block announcement so that orphan rate won't be a concern).
I don't see the advantage since full nodes in Iota will still need to watch all the global transactions if they wish to converge on a single longest chain. And if not then chaos and double-spends on multiple partitions.
What am I missing?
What about "energy as money"? The law of energy conservation won't allow to doublespend. And mining is solved in an elegant way - one needs to generate energy instead of wasting it on number crunching...