Quote from: Killiz on June 17, 2019, 10:33:45 PM

Quote from: ClashProject on June 17, 2019, 08:13:47 PM

Quote from: Killiz on June 17, 2019, 07:37:16 PM

Could DPos and POA be briefly explained so I know what I'm voting for?

DPoS would basically be PoS with preselected validators which have to be online.
If a validator is not online, the block will be skipped.
DPoS is chosen instead of PoS to have a minimum weight for every participant, which ensures that the block creator will be online.
In the beginning, I would like to set the minimum to 0.1%, which of course would be lowered later on.

PoA is PoW combined with PoS, to ensure that there are no 51% attacks and no orphans. First one will randomly find a proof of work block and submit it. Then 100 previously selected (dependent on the previous block) validators will sign the block, and if one of them did not sign the block, the block will be invalid and you will be forced to wait for the next one.

PoA would be much more difficult to implement, add more garbage that has to be sent from one node to another. It would drastically increase the time needed for each block to be confirmed, implying that the block time has to be increased from 15s to 2 minutes or more, increasing the average confirmation time to approximately six minutes, assuming just 1% of the nodes are offline; with 10% of the nodes being offline, it would be one block every 26 days.

On the other hand PoA would be the only way of having not just a decentralised, but also a distributed consensus.

As you might see, I, as the developer and visionary, definitely vote for DPoS, because this is much better for the future of the network.
Unless someone has a better solution, I will vote for DPoS, but I can also see why other people would vote for the only way of having a distributed consensus that's resistant against orphans.

Thanks

DPos sounds a little too centralized, but I do understand the selected validators are needed to ensure the network is secure when using super fast block times.
Would it be possible to for the network to randomly select which nodes are validators periodically, for a determined number of blocks, then repeat?
Such nodes would need to qualify in some way to validate, ( time online, balance, connectivity etc).

Is the proof of work in your version of POA really needed?
In pure POS currencies you would need 51% of the coins to attack the network, why would you want to attack something you have a 51% stake in?
This version of POA sounds a little too complicated.

Can bullions POS algorithm not be used and tweaked to how you need it? I like what was done with it, and it works really well.

DPoS is just like normal PoS, with the tiny change that there is a minimum requirement for hosting a node. Just like how hosting a masternode requires some minimum, but in DPoS you dont have to burn your coins to form a collateral.

PoA needs PoW and PoS to have security against 51% attacks from both sides, the complexity of forcing 100 people to sign the block is a requirement to be secure against orphans and chain splits.
Those would kill the coin and have to be avoided at any cost.

Therefore, no, it is not possible to use or adapt a casual PoS, because you either have to skip a large portion of the blocks or predefine the one and only validator to make sure that there are no chain splits.

Since predefining a validator is much better on a pure efficiency basis, but might be slightly worse if you are trying to achieve an unweighted distributed consensus, I would go for DPoS all day. Just think about how PoW is. You can theoretically participate, but you seriously have no chance of getting a block whatsoever. Additionally, there are mining farms which will always be more efficient than you are, which basically kick you out, unless the coin doubles its price; and to even have a chance of getting any rewards, you join a pool. Why not join a pool in here? All you need to do is form a trusted group (or trustless group using smart contracts) and let one participant set up a validator. Other than defining the maximum number of pools (which can be changed in forks), there is no real change compared to a PoW network. I mean, other than that it is PoS not PoW, but PoW is just PoS with more layers.

Quote from: sockpuppet1911 on June 17, 2019, 09:11:30 PM

Interested, do you have a telegram channel, discord or a twitter i can follow as well? If you need graphics i might be able to help.

I just noticed your offer about graphics, thank you very much, that would be amazing if you could help.
I'll ask our web developer to send you a private message, if that's okay with you.