Re: A Two-Round Proof of Work instead of PoW

tl;dr - total electric consumption will not be reduced by implementing the OP's proposal.

I'm sure the miners wouldn't be supporting such a thing because it just makes it even harder for them to get a reward.

Quote

Also, if there are millions of miners and you randomly select 100 of them, you encourage the rest of the miners to form mining pools. Then, you will end up in a situation where 100 miners are selected as before, but there are only 100 huge mining pools, they always get everything and distribute that to smaller miners. Almost no solo miner will follow your system if that miner will be rewarded once per month, because the risk of price drop after entering exchange is higher than the potential reward from solo mining.

I wonder if the people that wrote that paper realized that. that's thinking ahead! Grin

the bitcoin mining system is really hard to make changes to without causing things to get "out of whack" Grin

This is similar to say that miners will organize themselves in big pools to organize a 51% attack on Bitcoin network. It did not happen so far.

No. The miners have incentives to not 51% attack the network. If they try this, the value of their equipment to drop >99% overnight.

Miners engaging in activity similar to what I described is similar to miners attempting to keeping their equipment that has a limited shelf life working as much as possible.

The N2 number of miners of the second Round is also adjustable like the complexity algorithm in PoW that is adjusted every 2016 Block.
Plus In Round 1 we are hashing Hash(Block Head + PublicKey + Nonce). So I don't know how this is going to force miners to organize in big pools. The Public Key of a miner has the benefit of limiting the formation of pools. In BTC PoW there is no public key in the hash. In TRPoW, the hash result is public key dependent.

The public key associated with the address 1KFHE7w8BhaENAswwryaoccDb6qcT6DbYY belongs to the mining pool f2pool. There are thousands (if not more) of miners who mine on f2pool, but all of f2pool's found blocks payout to the above address.

If f2pool makes it to the second round, any miner who is not participating in the second round will switch to mining on f2pool, or another pool that is participating in the second round. If a miner sits idle (or is not otherwise producing work that has the potential to find a block) during the second round, their equipment is losing out on potential value.

I agree with you on this. It is a good solution for the pool miners to use public key in the hash but it increases the complexity of the problem they are trying to solving.

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on Today at 02:09:37 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on November 15, 2021, 10:29:45 AM

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on November 15, 2021, 09:57:28 AM

Quote from: Epictetus on November 15, 2021, 08:42:40 AM

The PoW job is also to maintain the Block Time at 10min. We can achieve that by just making everyone wait for that 10min minus delay/network broadcasting time etc.

Say round 1 only takes 2 minutes to get 100 miners. Then you just wait 8 minutes to select the "winner". That's a 10 minute block time. So it saves 8 minutes of hashing. Less global warming.

You would need a way to prevent the knowledge of the winner for 8 minutes so that nobody can start on the next block before the 10 minutes have past.

The difficulty of the first round could be "x", and the difficulty of the second round would be "10000x". Each of the miners who are "selected" during the first round could need to have their "block" include the hash of the previous block, and the first "block" in the first round would need to include the hash of block found in the second round. The found block in the second round would need to sign the hash of the last block of the first round. This is very similar to how bitcoin mining occurs today.

I need to read slowly this part to understand it well.