When your IQ is only 120 or so, you need a zillion little examples to become convinced of the abstract fundamental that convinced me weeks ago.
How many of your examples will I need to refute, before you will finally understand the fundamental insolubility I explained upthread?
WTF? He only has to spend the normal deposit transaction to position his SH at a desired ordered choice among the available choices given by your function.
Ok, since I really have no idea what argument you are making, let us make this really basic:
At least you admit you can't think abstractly at my level.
1. Imagine there are 10 SHs.
2. Imagine evilguy controls TB number 10 the consensus point.
3. Evilguy adds another 100 SHs via a deposit tx during his TB.
4. The SH randomization function is (Put new SH at end of list)
5. There are now 110 SHs in the exact order as before, plus evilguy's additional SHs at TB 11 through 110.
6. nothing to do here
7. Evilguy controls the network from TB 11 through 110.
8. During TB 11 through 110, evilguy can deny others from adding SHs, he can use earnings from tx fees (and perhaps extortion due to ability to deny transactions) to add more of his SH from 111 forward, thus increase control of the network.
Even if evilguy does not have complete control of all future TBs and/or lets the order of SH wrap around to revisit others who previously had a turn, he has control over a contiguous block of TBs, and this gives power to delay transactions for significant periods of time. Some competing currency owners or even during a war, someone may have an incentive to disrupt the system even at what appear to be losses in monetary terms.
It doesn't matter how you change #4 the randomization function, I can still find a way to game the input entropy, because it is not randomized but rather deteministic in some other way. This is why only Proof-of-Work has the necessary entropy, where peers compete to be first for each TB anew by (all of them continuously) supplying uncertainty over who will be first.
If you control all the TBs [in a CB period], you control what goes in the consensus (as well as getting all the tx fees).
Oh hey look, more ideas from some other design that AnonyMint has in his head that can be attacked, because there just
must be a way to attack it, and if the design doesn't have an attack, then we'll add to the design so that it does. You are unbelievably immature.
I am referring to controlling a entire CB block period of TBs so as to have more control over the input entropy to a more sophisticated #4 randomization function you might choose.
With that simple #4 you have above, the evilguy doesn't need to control all of the TBs in a CB period in order to accomplish the attack. If you improve the randomization function in #4, then it gets more difficult to accomplish the attack but it can still be done by exploiting the many opportunities in the future (especially as the # of good and evil SH is 1000+ as this provides more future CBs to target as opportunities for obtaining contiguous blocks).