Are you saying that the simple nomadic mint is a part of your program that assembles the master ledger in timestamp order? For it to work this way, it would have to have the sole responsibility to verify that the transaction is legitimate and thus verify it to the network. Thus, it has the responsibility to stop any attempted double spends when presented with the second or subsequent ones.
IMO the two methods accomplish the same thing, but are slightly different in execution
The method that I came up with does not require a centralized mint. I am not trying to argue that one is better than the other, because I have not thought about it. I have no desire to try to start programing either one.
Yes I have a single mint which solves many problems that annoy bitcoin users. That mint is nomadic because it's verified object state periodically moves from full node to full node. What i call a nomadic mint agent is isomorphic to the notion that full nodes take turns being the mint. Each other full node, having the role of relay agent, closely verifies the log output of the mint agent.
Because CPoS has a single mint there is immediate acknowlegement by the mint when it queues up a received transaction. There is no chance of a double spend or that an orphan block can be created. CPoS has a single, non-forking blockchain which is simply appended to by the mint's local slave bitcoind instance with trivial Satoshi difficulty effort
My first system test will be two full nodes in a box, cooperating to create new blocks, and quickly exchanging relay and mint roles. Another system test will be three full nodes in a box, performing an exhaustive regression test of failure modes of one of the three nodes.
Since BlackCoin has a 1 minute block time, the minimum average transaction time should be 30 seconds.
The methodology that I foresaw is made possible by the fact that all of the nodes are cooperating, which is not possible with a PoW coin like Bitcoin.
Therefore, whenever nodes with 51% of the stake at the start of a block have eventually confirmed that a transaction can be in the current block, it can be confirmed to the entire network that it will eventually be in the block.
If an attempt at a double spend is occurring in the block, then the first node that subsequently becomes aware of the attempt should immediately ensure that second spend will not be added to the current block by sending an immediate alert that a double spend has been attempted. Each node receiving this alarm should verify that it is accurate. If it is a false claim, the offending node should be blackballed.
I assumed that this method was being programmed by rat4 when it was announced on r/BlackCoin that he was working on PoS 2.0 based on the Peercoin protocol.
It had never been adequately explained to me why Soepkip and others who should have known better had allowed the 10 second fiction to continue after the big pump and dump occurred shortly after the article came out. The 10 second claim was certainly used during that pump. I have tried on several occasions to get an explanation, but I have not tried recently to get one directly from Soepkip because all of my earlier attempts had been brushed aside by him.
.
Could you point me to a writeup of your algorithm? Or if this is still exploratory, then could you explain more about how proof-of-stake works in your system to create new blocks? Does your system, like Satoshi's, permit a forking blockchain? Note that any such blockchain forks could confuse the user accessing the minority branch.