There is always a way around, an escape, and that has been driving new Physics and technological innovations.
Sorry no. You are handwaving.
I do not buy into false hopes. There are invariants here which cannot be overcome.
Is it possible for you to supply your mathematical details of these insurmountable invariants so we can look into it from our end?
...Much better for me if the competition wastes time on an insoluble direction, while I am working on a promising one...
Not really aware of a competition. Is the promising one you are working on a solution to the issues of Bitcoin with an entirely new algorithm?
PoW is one of the most important innovations in modern history (kudos Satoshi
) it is very irresponsible decision to abandon it because of some flaws and limitations by claiming every flaw to be an inherent, essential one and jumping back to a pre-crypto, failed, subjective alternative (like reputation based systems) often rebranded by using the same terminology of Satoshi Nakamoto and bitcoin! I'm not against change, on the contrary I strongly support any new idea whenever by whoever. But I personally feel good about a change when it is suggested (at least mainly) to help people to do something better not as an instrument in hands of an opportunist who has found or been informed about a weakness in a newly born technology and instead of trying or helping to fix it, initiates a hypocritical campaign just to sell us his crippy name or to convince his dad that he is genius, ... whatever.
I'm not that kind of person, It's so tempting to take advantage of weaknesses and flaws of a system but I don't like such a miserable life. This proposal is a fix not a hypocritical alternative to PoW.
It is a fix for a series of of important challenges of bitcoin and PoW networks, it deserves decent reasoning and discussion instead of trolling and vandalism.
To understand how unacceptable is that kind of behavior it is better to understand the importance and beauty of the subject, imo. let's take a look:
1- It fixes Pooling pressure as the most centralization threat to bitcoin, by:
- eliminating (solo)mining variance flaw by dividing mining to 3 phases that in the most important one, Collaboration phase (being the second one), where 98% of the block reward is going to be distributed, they can partially contribute to PoW process tens of thousands of times easier directly.
- eliminating proximity premium flaw by uniquely distributing 'new block found' information across tens of thousands points in the network and incentivizing announcement of this information simultaneously.
2- Although this proposal is ready for an alpha version implementation and consequent deployment phases, it is too young to be thoroughly understood for its other impacts and applications, the ones that it is not primarily designed for. As some premature intuitions I can list:
- It seems to be a great infrastructure for sharding , the most important onchain scalability solution.
The current situation with pools makes sharding almost impossible, when +50% mining power is centralized in palms of few (5 for bitcoin and 3 for Ethereum) pools, the problem wouldn't be just security and vulnerability to cartel attacks, unlike what is usually assumed, it is more importantly a prohibiting factor for implementing sharding (and many other crucial and urgent improvements).
If my intuition might be proven correct, it would have a disruptive impact on the current trend that prioritizes off chain against on chain scalability solutions. - This protocol probably can offer a better chance for signaling and autonomous governance solutions
- {TODO: suggest more}
A thorough analysis of the details suggested in the design, would convince non-biased reader that this proposal is thought enough and is not that immature to encourage anybody to attempt a slam dunk and reject it trivially, on the contrary considering the above features and promises, and the importance of pooling pressure as one of the critical flaws of bitcoin, it deserves a fair extensive discussion.
Now, when someone comes and ruins such a decent topic, like what @anunimint did here, by repeating nosens objections and being never convinced no matter what, it could be either due to his ingenuity or as a result of him being biased obsessively because of his history in public sphere that is full of Proof of everything other than Work obsessions and vague claims about PoW being a boring, old fashioned weak system, doomed to be centralized, vulnerable to every possible attack vector, blah, blah, blah, ... that he is trapped himself in or both .
I vote for the second option about this guy, but if he is really smart, he should put the load (of his own history) off his shoulders and be ready for revision and improve.[/list]