Quote from: g2com on January 02, 2017, 01:09:26 AM

Quote from: Deep In The Mines LLC on January 01, 2017, 11:35:39 PM

Your suggestions are unfortunately infeasible, and pooled mining exists.

Why should the reward be split among the miners when the ones with more hash-rate will generally have a higher chance of acquiring the block(s), and thus it balances out?

Also, pools split rewards within the pool depending on individual hash-rate contribution, that's the closest you'll get to a split in the mining world, and its only within the pool, there are multiple pools.

The system is fair, and regardless of it being chance based to an extent, the higher hash-rate miners will still in the long-term acquire more blocks (well to be fair most of them are pooled, so lets say Bitcoins rather than blocks).

Currently, the majority of blocks are discovered by pools, and then split among the miners depending on contribution.

What you are suggesting is some sort of pooled-mining system where only the top 100 highest hash-rate miners get any kind of reward, why should they share their block if your system would be implemented?

You misunderstand my idea. The time for mining each block varies so that a miner cannot always hold the leader position. A pool-mining system is consisted of a fixed set of nodes, while my idea is to also award miners who found the hash in the second, third till nth place so that their work wouldn't be completely futile.

You got it wrong, when a miner finds a hash miners after that just confirm it in consensus that it was mined in a legit way.
Pools doing the exact same thing unless you want to provide small computational power and be rewarded big?
No works become futile because mining doesn't work the way you think it does.