Quote from: monsterer on January 09, 2016, 11:18:21 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 09, 2016, 12:34:04 AM

Quote from: monsterer on January 09, 2016, 12:26:17 AM

...POW ensures permissionless behaviour

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

I think you missed my point in the beginning of that sentence: 'if only you can mine your own transactions'. That changes quite a lot of things; eradicating pools for one.

I thought you were referring to an impossible "bearer coin" type of design where PoW wasn't needed when you wrote that 'if only you can mine your own transactions'. Now I understand you meant something else but it doesn't make sense to say that submitting a PoW solution in Bitcoin (or any other Satoshi PoW coin such as Monero) can be done by users without pools because of the great variance on mining (for technophobes this means that a small miner may win a block solution every 100 years or something like that, thus without a pool they can't pay for their mining electricity). That is why I proposed a solution. You are really driving at is if Satoshi's design was End-to-End Principled, but it is not. The only incentive to mine in Satoshi's design is to generate BTC from mining, thus economically pools can't be eliminated.

Several of your posts have been misinterpreted by both myself and CfB. Maybe your terse writing style. I even noticed I had to intervene in a developing argument between you and Illodin in my thread last month to iron out the misunderstanding between you two. It may be that you are deep in coding and don't have a lot of time to be verbal.

Quote from: monsterer on January 09, 2016, 11:18:21 AM

POW is permissionless even if mining is centralising. Example: turn all mining equipment in the world into a unicorn - will the chain recover? The answer is yes, because regular non professional miners will take over again; granted it will take a long time to produce a block, but eventually it will recover.

You forget I pointed out to smooth (in our discussion about Proof-of-Stake versus Proof-of-Work in my vaporcoin's thread last month) that assumption fails when the government + oligarchy is the one taking control, because they can charge the cost to the collective. Thus Proof-of-Work devolves to Proof-of-Stake in a society-wide holistic basis (in the sense that the ongoing cost is no longer shouldered by the attacker when the attacker is top-down controlled society itself). My proposal aims to improve the situation by forcing that society-wide funnel to dictate to every user what they must include in their PoW share (which is much much more difficult to control and was the original idealism of Bitcoin!) which in my proposal is no longer sent to a pool because mining is made unprofitable. Iota accomplished a similar feat (because there is no mining reward and each user submits some PoW with his transaction), but albeit with the flaws I conjectured already in this thread. Whereas, Satoshi's design naturally leads to top-down centralization without having to control what every user mines. You see I place very high technical economics high IQ goals on my efforts. I am very hard on myself. I don't want to work on bullshit.

If I am correct on my design, then my design is the one we need to kill Bitcoin. But I need to go spend some more time thinking about flaws. In my haste of writing these voluminous online messages, I have probably forgotten some key detail that is a flaw. I will spend some time on this after we conclude these rapid fire discussions.