Quote from: drbommel on Today at 04:00:29 AM

You are right. It is very complex, and the goals proposed in the preprint are ambitious. On the other hand, such a project seems necessary. Technology has evolved significantly in the 15 years since Bitcoin’s inception, and I’ve often wondered how Satoshi would design it today. No question—my love and respect for Bitcoin will always remain unwavering.[...]

If I understand well, the abstract objectives it's so the community can define its own course. I wonder if there's ever been a truly community-driven project since Bitcoin, because it seems that every other project out there starts with power imbalances and therefore some conflict of interest. That's why I like your approach: it respects Bitcoin while tapping into years of research and experiments from a variety of platforms to feed into this project.

Quote from: albertorma on Today at 08:10:38 AM

Just my two cents

I would say this "hybrid model" is a clear mistake, just keep things simple and stick to proof of work.

Energy efficiency is not an issue, censorship-resistance is.

https://anitaposch.com/bitcoin-differences-proof-of-work-stake

You have a good point about the complexity, but I wouldn’t say it’s a clear error. Starting with PoW is necessary to avoid premining; once a sufficiently widespread token distribution is achieved, a transition to PoS can be considered.

In my opinion, a community-driven project should not begin with debates that create friction but should continually analyze data and make decisions based on evidence rather than on preconceived ideas. I do see a feasible transition to PoS that could be more resilient than anything currently in existence, since it would avoid the inherent power concentrations brought by the ICOs of Ethereum or Cardano, to name two examples—though it will require deep reflection at the right moment. And I'm open to change my mind and being wrong