@TPTB_need_war your design calls for blocks, which need miners (who are only in it for the profit), yet you've been talking about making mining unprofitable to avoid centralisation? There seems to be a conflict here - would you care to explain?
Would it be possible to shift the "mining" to the receiver? Just like with credit/debit payments today, the receiver willingly pays the fee to make it easy for customers to pay for goods and services. The receiver will always be motivated to collect their payment.
Great thread by the way, still shows hope in the crypto community. Thanks for continued education.
I do believe I have already solved this challenge by:
- Payers do the PoW because they must attach it to each transaction submitted to the network, same as for Iota
- Making the PoW share calculation faster than the latency to outsource it (this was explained in detail upthread); otherwise ASICS could be paid to mine it more efficiently which is a crucial detail
- Pools are disincentivized because mining isn't profitable any way, so payers are not doing PoW to gain income (although when they do win a block they get the unprofitable block reward, which was an important factor for reasons explained in detail upthread)
- The block chain design must provide an ability for payers to hash an entire block in their PoW shares, which Iota accomplishes by allowing multiple permanent partitions (which is what leads to the complex math of DAGs as explained upthread) and which I accomplish in my design with multiple intra-block temporary partitions (details on this crucial aspect of my design have not been revealed)
- In my design, the intra-block partitions provide the instant transactions feature, eliminate the Tragedy of Commons block chain scaling issue articulate between myself and ArticMine upthread. Ditto for Iota, except the partitions are permanent which leads to the complex math that I alleged causes unprovable Consistency. Security/Consistency in my design remains the same math as for Bitcoin, just gaining the many improvements I enumerated.
- Although there is centralization in my design due to the intra-block partitions being handled by servers, unlike the pools in Bitcoin and economics of mining (and blocks) in Bitcoin, the PoW remains unprofitable and thus these centralized servers can be changed at any time by some minority of the payers (or a fork if there is a 50% attack by the servers and the majority of the payers won't move from those servers). Thus I argue my design has a much better fighting mode to remain decentralized, permissionless. Iota is also decentralized because payers can choose which partition/chain/tip to reference, I allege upthread the implications of permanent partitions causes the math of the Security/Consistency to be unbounded in complexity which I thus contemplate could potentially lead to centralization due to a Tragedy of Commons around unbounded game theory which would be I theorize thwarted with some centralized policies.
So in summary, I think I have designed the best decentralization we will get from a block chain. Wouldn't there be many here who would be interested in seeing my design implemented and open sourced (as well launched as an altcoin)?
P.S. I don't release details on the intra-block partitioning scheme because Dash Evolution might copy it and claim it as their own, stealing the last thing I have remaining to try to help me in my life situation, while also helping the community (I hope). I think I already provided too many details and it is likely we may see some copycat version of my design in a delayed Evolution. Nevertheless even Evan et al copy me, they will not likely get rid of the masternodes which cause the following insoluble mess:
It is the math of attack vectors which thus converts Dash into a PoS(hit) coin. Smooth appears to have forgotten the conclusions we arrived at in the prior technical discussion on this matter (or I have).
[...]Not to mention the fraud and the fact that masternodes are illegal unregistered money transmitters under FinCIN regulations, since they transfer value to the developers.
On top of all that, Dash has NO USERSHIP and NO ACTUAL MARKETS (other than some delusional speculators playing greater fool game theory with each other).