The rewards during this cooperation phase (fees and new coins) will be fairly distributed among the winners of the previous competition phase. Fairly should be interpreted as proportional. That means that a mining pool that solved 7% of the blocks during the competition phase will get 7% of the total proceedings from every block mined during the competition phase.
Congrats, you've just reinvented essentially Byzcoin, which is incentives incompatible:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16861492#msg16861492https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/46#issuecomment-266235696Who will invent the next NAOD?
NAOD = nonsense algorithm of the day which repeats mistakes already in the prior art, because the author is too uninformed to cite the prior art.Dear Iamnotback,
Thank you very much for your tone and sarcasm.
This is exactly the kind of spirit that promotes open discussion and sharing of ideas.
On the other hand, you are right; there are many similarities between this idea and the Byzcoin algorithm (I didn't know about it previously) and there is a problem with incentives regarding the fees.
I am not sure the matter is settled however. The under-the-table fees problem both proposals present does not imply there is no merit in the system at all, IMHO.
Fees could be given in full to the miner responsible for creating the next block. This would further incentivize said miner not to dissappear during his turn(s). This could encourage a market for fees between the miner and the user, since the mining turns would be deterministic.
Or fees could be removed completely from the Tac phase de facto if all the miners decide to cheat.
All the fees could be negotiated out of band. So what?
Or maybe other possibilities (like enforcing a fair insertion rule of transactions in full blocks).
Or maybe someone will come up with a bright idea.
It is comforting to know that you will be here, encouraging people to share it with us with your nice tone and praise.
Keep up the good work! Regards.