Ah you again.  The guilty always comes back to watch the crime scene they created.

"Signature chain" isn't a thing.  It just means you can't sign a recent blockhash so you do not own any old addresses, you are just reposting old signatures you saw somewhere.

Ya signing an address means nothing for timestamping.  This address, while unused, could have been created at any time.  Basically we have no idea if OneSignature actually can sign or if this is just a re-used signature from years ago.  Also the OP is probably OneSignature, and this whole topic is just to show off that he found what he believes to be the oldest signature.

If the message that the signature signed does not include a recent blockhash, then it is worthless.

Huh I could have sworn it was just yesterday that there was a 12 hour backlog on our blockchain with 70mb of transactions waiting to be verified.  Lightning isn't sloving it, its been 7 years.

Many good points n0nce.

Firstly, when you talk about energy efficiency of CPU vs ASIC, you are probably talking watts/hash.  This isn't a valid metric because the algorithm determines how many hashes is "alot".  A slow algorithm could provide just as much security at 100 hashes/second as a fast algorithm at 1 billion hashes/second.  Hashes/second does not matter, what matters is how difficult it is to achieve 51% of the network hashrate.

Mining uses a lot of power.  It has been discovered that the reason for this is (of course the value of the coin and the block subsidy) but also the low CAPEX/OPEX ratio of SHA256 hashing.  In other words, the equipment to hash a tiny SHA256 input is very basic.  So this frameword (an asic chip) can be produced cheaply and fed (with data and power) easily so that dozens or hundreds can live on a single chip.  They can run reliably at high temperatures and speeds.

This leads to a massive ability for people with modest capital and lots of cheap energy to scale almost indefinitly.

On the other hand with CPU mining, CPU's are complex and difficult to feed (you often won't find more than one on a motherboard) and the capital (CAPEX) versus power cost (OPEX) ratio is very high.  You simply can't easily scale up to 100 computers (the equivalent of 1 asic hashboard) very easily.  Especially when these large miners can't dominate the market, everyone with a laptop from angola to zimbabwe will be competing with them.

For an example I am CPU mining as I am responding to you, browsing the internet, watching videos, there is no noticable slowdown.  Yet this dual use is producing 1/3 the coins as an S9 miner would produce at a fraction of the power usage and heat production.  So I don't think it would hurt the consumer market, in fact it would benefit it by not diverting extra fab capacity to unnecessary GPU chips or ASIC chips.  Especially with the moore's law memory req scaling, consumers would always have, at the very least, last gen of CPU's on the secondary market to buy up.

That is by decision, not any inherent property of the network.  Initially bitcoin had no blocksize limit, which was consistent with the whitepaper.  One was later stealth hardforked in due to fear of spam attacks.  In hindsight spam attacks are a non-issue and can be controlled by min tx fee.

Bitcoin was 1mb in 2009.  Moores law shows that capacity doubles every 2 years.  So for us in 2022, 64mb is equivalent to 1mb in 2009.

This is a hybrid PoW/PoS

Basically you are using "proof of coins" to weight your mining power.

I guess it would be useful to prevent miners from dumping their coins but other than that it just reduces decentralization since buying a miner does not put you on equal footing with a rich person who has a miner.

And yes even with this idea it would still be using asics to mine.

We should immediately reject anything blockstream proposes due to their conflict of interest selling sidechains, a market created by throttling L1 capacity of bitcoin.

I'm glad you are using your PhD to try to help solve this energy problem.  As someone who has been thinking about blockchain since 2010 and energy use nearly as long, I can assure you the place to be looking is "difficult" algorithms.  CPU only algorithms are one of the best places to go.  Also research CAPEX/OPEX ratio, you will find it discussed in oPoW whitepaper.

If we can limit only CPU's to mine it democratizes mining like you want and also limits large mining farms by the much higher capex/opex ratio than easy algorithms like sha256 which can be sped up by orders of magnitude with specialized hardware, throwing much more power at it than CPU's ever could utilize.

There has been a missing link, and that is memory hardness is the only way to reliably stop asics or gpus, but given enough time they will overcome the memory hardness due to moores law.  The simple yet non-obvious solution which I described previously, is to scale the algorithm's memory requirement with moores law.  So for example every 2 years worth of blocks the memory requirement for the hashing algo doubles.  This will preclude asic manufacturers keeping up as the consumer commodity market is the only thing that can keep up with moores law in fast memory.

Here is a really easy way to implement "proof of replication" in bitcoin:

Require each mining attempt to hash the last "n" blocks, instead of just the current block.

Here is a really easy way for bitcoin to democratize mining pools:

Instead of hashing attempts to find a golden nonce, require signing attempts, where the key used in signing is 1/100th of all the coinbase outputs.  This would mean mining pools realistically could only have around 100 miners each.

This coin is the solution to algorithmic stablecoins (which are now being regulated), Ergon price is more or less pegged to average global energy price with no oracles.  It is receiving some attention from miners and now with the macro environment is probably about ready to grow https://miningpoolstats.stream/ergon

So this will achieve minting coins based on volume https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5381931.0

And basically you would need to make a token smart contract that will mint more coins and add them to liquidity and/or airdrop them on current holders each time a sufficiently rare transaction happens.

First I will say I don't understand this and a more lengthy explanation would be needed.

But I do think something like this could be possible.  Basically if I am getting the gist you are basically making a web of transactions instead of just one transaction so it couldn't be easily double spent.  Kind of like proof of history with solana or something.

To answer some of the sentiments here, I can't foresee a way this could ever replace either proof of work or proof of stake.  You have to have miners of some form to run the chain and only then would transactions work.  So this isn't a replacement only an addition.

One way to look at it is that it can reward people fkr sending transactions, like participating in a lottery.  Sending a transaction would be like buying a lottery ticket.

The mining pool wouldn't be able to make free attempts at this, at least not at a reasonable level because only after the blockhash is made (after hashing together all the block data) will you know if anything is a winner.  So creating a transaction id is just a ticket  and any winners will not be able to be determined until all of the block has been created and preferably even if that block gets accepted by the rest of the network, so perhaps even include the hash of the next block.  So that would require hashing the transaction with the blockhash of that block and a future block.  Perhaps even go 10 blocks deep before knowing if a transaction is a winner.

I think it would be cool feature of bitcoin, but ultimately it could also be powerful in defi, where you can tune the difficulty so every 1 million transactions or so new coins are minted and added to liquidity, or a big airdrop of coins is dropped on every holder or something.  And these airdrops would scale in frequency based on how popular the network became and how high the transaction volume becomes.  If people aren't using it, few coins are minted, but as people use it a  lot, more tokens would be minted.

Proof of Transaction (PoT) will likely be a supplemental mining method in blockchains and tokens.

Transactions have a provable cost in terms of transaction fee.  So why not use it as a method of mining?

We could look at Transaction ID, which is the hash of all the transaction info.  If the txid meets a difficulty requirement (like it contains a certain number of leading zero's) then we could say that was proof that many transactions were sent in order to hit that lucky number.  But this would be false.  Getting a txid does NOT mean that the transaction was broadcast to the network.  So an attacker could just keep changing the transaction data and get a winning txid before ever sending a transaction to the network.

So how do we verify that the transactions are sent before they are determined a winner?  Well we would need to make sure it was included in a block.  So one workable solution would be to look at not the transaction id, but the hash of the transaction id together with the block hash of the block the transaction was included in.  So say we concatenate the txid and blockhash and hash them together.  If a certain number of leading zeroes are found, then the transaction is a winner.

In order to reward this in Bitcoin or other blockchains the best way would be to then require the miner of the next block to include the address that sent the winning transaction some of the coinbase reward.  In smart contract tokens, a smart contract for the token could mint and distribute rewards to all holders if desired, add liquidity, and/or reward the address that sent the winning transaction.  This would likely have to be called by a special function, or require every transaction to check the last block for a winner.  With auto-liquidity or reflection tokens the % transaction fee is another way to prevent spamming transactions trying to win.

Why do this?  It opens up a new way for mining and incentivizes transaction creation and thus volume.  We all know bitcoin will eventually have to survive on fees alone so this would be a way to increase demand for blockspace.  In bitcoin, the winning transaction would get delegated some of the block reward; whether the block reward is emission or just entirely fees.

In other tokens this method could be used to create randomized drops of fresh minted tokens, and these drops would scale in frequency with the volume.  So the higher the volume the more coins get minted for example.

That is EXACTLY what I am afraid of.  Bitcoin is being treated like a hobby project not "money for the world".  And what I mean by that is if we wait until all other options are exhausted we will no longer be a contender for money for the world.  In other words it will be too late.

If we want to be digital gold then we will probably end up somewhere in the top 10.  We will become the Peter Schiff of crypto.

To those saying I haven't been paying attention to "oh-chain scaling" are you talking about segwit?  That isn't scaling that is trying to remove information from the blockchain.  Last I checked transaction fees were still $2.50 and currently bitcoin volume is very low.  Dozens of blockchains have proven you can 10x + bitcoin's blocksize and have no issues whatsoever. 

To me the only question is, how much pain is the community willing to tolerate before they finally scale?  Right now we have already lost 63% of the marketshare of crypto and counting.  Maybe when bitcoin falls to #2 people will reconsider things.

As far as I can tell, if a pool could test your miner by messing with transactions or other block data that would quickly hash to a "winning" nonce then I'm sure the bad miner could be made to notice such manipulated blocks (unless I'm missing something which seems to be common lol).

Since there are a lot of "self moderated" (censored) Lighting threads I decided to open one that is not censored.

Here are the reasons why I think lightning is a failed idea and I would like your input about whether you see it succeeding or not.

1. Lightning is only necessary because the dev team refuses to scale the base layer.  No one would open lightning channels if the fee for getting on the base layer was under 1 cent, which it could be today.  Basically Lightning is a conflict of interest with what is best for bitcoin users and unnecessary centralization of the means of transferal.

2. The lightning network could be repurposed to be much more usable by dropping bitcoin from it entirely.  I have illustrated an idea in 2017

https://web.archive.org/web/20210414170746/https://www.naturehacker.org/2017/10/the-only-100-fully-decentralized-peer.html

that would make it so your "channels" are trusted contacts and each person has their own currency (a database ledger tally of what is owed).  This way the parties can settle with whatever currency they want, be it crypto or toothpicks.  It does require trust, but only with your direct contacts, and there are no on-chain fees for opening or closing a channel.  Such a system could revolutionize the entire world where money is not needed and we can all deal with anyone on earth like we deal with family and close friends.

What are your uncensored thoughts on lightning?

This is just an observation and not an attack, but Lightning network seems like Quantum Shor's, always just around the corner but until now vastly surpassed by conventional technologies (conventional computers/large blocksize).

My suggestion is use the server to mine raptoreum and you will make at least 100x lightning fees.