Quote from: PenAndPaper on October 15, 2014, 12:14:42 AM

Quote from: qdoop on October 14, 2014, 11:46:26 PM

Quote from: PenAndPaper on October 14, 2014, 11:34:58 PM

Quote from: deepceleron on October 14, 2014, 10:51:25 PM

Quote from: qdoop on October 14, 2014, 03:56:54 PM

Currently for a block hash to be accepted (proof of work) should have this form

XXX....YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.....

where
X's : Zeros
Y's : Don't cares

Difficulty Target demands at least a minimum number of zero X's.
This requirement does not adapt well with sadden network hash power changes and the time required to find a hash may vary significantly.

We propose a different algorithm as proof of work that adapts well and works without specifying a Difficulty target.

Instead of Y's being don't cares we count the bit changes (0 to 1 transitions) within them.
So we force a block hash to satisfy two contradictory requirements due to the fixed bit length of the hash (256bits)
Counting 0 to 1 transitions a hash could have at max 128 something really rare.

Given two hashes with the same number of transitions the one with the most X's being zero wins.
I exact starting from the left and comparing the hashes bit by bit the first having 0 where the other hash has 1 wins.
(Dominant 0 bit)

How the network develops consciousness?
A) All participating nodes try to maximize hash 0 to 1 transitions
B) At given time intervals nodes publish their best so far
C) A node receiving two or more hashes always prefers the one with most transitions and if equal the one with most dominant 0 bits.
*A node that finds a really rare block and publishes it on time radically improves the security of the network.

This is preliminary work an we would like your comments or suggest similar works from others.

This is a wealth of nonsense that shows a complete lack of understanding of how mining, target, difficulty, or even binary math work, which then conjures up a nonexistent issue.

This.

Also an advice to anyone who thinks he can come up with a better or fundamentally different or even slightly different pow algorithm...
Learn the very basics!

Thanks for repeating things I all ready know.
If you claim than there is never going to exist a better POW algorithm then i can ensure you that you are wrong

PS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_distance

The concept of "a better pow algorithm" is relative. Some may argue that "memory hard" pow algorithms are better for crypto currencies.

The problem is that you don't understand the very fundamental concept on top of which pow algorithms are based.
And that concept can't get any better because it is AS SIMPLE (and elegant) AS IT GETS.

Ok I do not understand it I have to admit that. Lips sealed

Just a question if you know for sure.
When calculating the total difficulty of a chain we count the values of the actual hashes or the difficulty targets in the blocks?