Bitcoin Forum

Proof of Work algorithm in the public chain.
This is a hybrid algorithm. The algorithm is not typical. The algorithm is more secure than standard POW. There are no analogues at the moment. It is like a bipartisan political system. On the one hand, miners, on the other hand, coin holders. Each of the parties individually cannot influence the system as a whole.

Additional protection against attacks 51%.
Mining pools together will not be able to attack blockchain.
This algorithm is more environmentally friendly. You can save a lot of energy while maintaining the current security level of the blockchain compared to the standard POW.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Ca36qzsXf5bAqm2pFZafQDGdNSyPKSEx

This algorithm is no more complicated than the standard POW, but gives additional advantages.
Please write your comments on this algorithm.

I've not given it much thought so far, but there's at least one thing that stood out:
I guess that's a logical flaw.
If an attacker were to try a double spend, the network he would attack would always be the one in which he has less coins, i.e. he will have an even greater incentive to attack that network.

This works on the principles of probability theory. The more addresses for UNI generation the attacker controls, the lower the numerical value of the UNI that he can generate. Accordingly, the complexity of mining a block in a hidden chain will be lower. And vice versa. Therefore, for a successful attack, the attacker must invest a lot of money to buy the nodes that will generate the UNI

51% Attack can be done technically. But in practice it is very difficult to have such a thing. Besides, instead of budgeting, other ways can be tried. If you are considering manipulation for a coin, all you have to do is simple. Don't make purchase after sale. You direct the price that simple. This is not ethical behavior.

I do not propose to engage in financial manipulations, purchases and sales. The need to buy a large amount of coins for a successful attack by an attacker is an obstacle, because It’s stupid to attack the blockchain in which he invested a lot of money. Losses will exceed gains. As long as an attacker controls less than half of all coins mined, it will be more difficult for him to carry out an attack than in a blockchain with a standard POW algorithm.

I think that proof of work is starting to become obsolete, proof of stake is better and delegated proof of stake seems to be the top contender. I know Bitcoin is the foundation but I think in the future better algorithms will come and replace both proof of stake and proof of work. You also have Byzantine Fault Tolerance and proof of weight. I think the best consensus algorithm is delegated proof of stake, Tron and EOS seem to have the most Dapps on the market and receive the most support.

But if we look at the market, which cryptocurrency is really having most of the market capitalization? It is still bitcoin, but their system is quite inefficient. What more if we could improve this to even transition to proof of stake, saving energy consumption, and making transaction even faster than before. Though, I highly believe the slow transaction speed of bitcoin is what makes it more like a store of value. If it would become faster, people could utilize it to even buy in groceries and conduct small transactions which in fact need its market price to be stable.

At the beginning of 2019, the Ethereum Classic network survived the 51% attack. I think the proposed P-POW algorithm could prevent such an attack.

POW is the most powerful algo than POS, its not going to be obsolete. If BTC has to solve scalability its not going to shift to POS but an org will have to resort to LN like what coinbase did. There is no transition to POS, ETH afaik won't be fully going that route too but will have the dual algo but this is what I just read somewhere in reddit.

There is only one proper fix for (big) mining operators who want to alter some legally relevant and properly defined protocol (e.g. By the Satoshi White Paper): by law enforcement.

So it is quite ok and safe to have big mining companies been ordinary compliant and regulated corporations imho

This statement contradicts the basic idea of ​​bitcoin. Bitcoin is independent of the authorities. If the authorities subjugate him, he will be destroyed.

As much as I like the idea of a completely anarchist Bitcoin, I'm down-to-earth enough to know that won't happen.
The Bitcoin network itself is not prone to regulation, by design, so much is true.
The Participants in the network, namely the miners, exchanges, maybe even ordinary users, definitely are.

But the end of n participants won't be the end of Bitcoin as long as n < all.

This "regulation" is external to Bitcoin. With or without permission, Bitcoin works. You can legislate and regulate all you want, Bitcoin is in no obligation to follow. You have to voluntarily comply, but you could also not comply and Bitcoin would work the same.

You think no one in Ecuador or Bolivia is using Bitcoin? Think again. But they have to be more careful, just in case and not expose themselves. Yes it sucks a bit in adoption, especially in the physical world (shops, street merchants, ATMs, etc).

If you do not willingly surrender your data, so they can associate your identity with your wallet, they cannot tell. Specially if you use things like Tor for your transactions, and remember to not re-use an address.

Bitcoin now depends on several associations of miners. Authorities can easily subjugate them. Thus, the authorities will gain control over bitcoin. The P-POW algorithm proposed by me limits the influence of miners on cryptocurrency.

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but I don't think you're grasping the magnitude of what it is you're proposing.  Bitcoin's network handles more wealth in a day than you are ever going to see in your entire life.  If you want your proposal to gain any traction whatsoever, it needs to be seen in action to be as robust and resilient as the current algorithm.  No one in their right mind is going to go along with a fork to a completely untested algorithm based on nothing more than a forum post and something on google drive.  We're not just going to take your word for it and go along for the ride.  Either code it up or pay someone to code it for you, put it on a public testnet and open beta, stress-test the hell out of it, get other developers involved, etc.  Prove beyond all doubt that:

a) it works
b) it still provides the right economic incentive for miners to secure the chain
c) it really does provide advantages over the current system

And even after you do all that, there might still be no one willing to go forward with your proposal.  Again, there's quite a lot at stake to be playing around with the security of network. 

If the above sounds like more effort than you're willing to put in, I'd suggest it's probably not worth your time.  We hear lots of half-finished ideas that never even make it to the code stage.

I think that there are people who are professionals capable of evaluating an idea without machine code. After all, machine code is just a tool. When you want to make a stool, do you first take a hammer or think?

Sounds like typical hybrid solutions(proof of work + proof of stake). Both the current PoS and PoW consensus mechanism are not really good for decentralization. We probably could however have some kind of sustainable and decentralized PoW or use decentralized trust combined with our decentralized unique IDs. And you could just remove the consensus from PoS and let the people use it for just staking, helping decentralized networks, etc.

Someone doubted that it works ? I don 't need proof.

If I wanted to make a stool, but knew that everyone who was ever going to sit on it had to agree with how it looked, or else no one would use it, I probably wouldn't bother at all to be honest.  That's just me, though.  If you still think it's worth the effort, go for it.

The algorithm is really hybrid, but not typical. Please write reviews directly according to the algorithm.

This was originally posted in tech subforum, I replied (and merited op by the way) but they moved the topic to altcoin discussion sub(!) now I understand op has started another thread here which is more active.
It is getting really crazy, mods go high on their extremism ever and ever and newbies are among the most vulnerable, somebody should do something about this madness, "Hello somebody!" As Nina Turner used to say in the good pre-corona days of dem 2020 debates  :D

Anyway, it's my post over there:

The topic really carries over to the discussion of altcoins. Apparently, for Bitcoin, any change in the algorithm is unacceptable. Or 2 threads with the same name are not allowed. I'm not sure.


Thanks for taking the time to read. Of course, for implementation it is necessary to develop in more detail, while this is only an idea.
The interaction of miners and signing nodes occurs on mutually beneficial conditions. The miner is interested in obtaining a signature with a minimum numerical value to reduce the complexity of mining. The signing node is interested in having its signature included in the block and receiving a reward. If for some reason the miner cannot get UNI signatures, then the algorithm turns into a standard POW, since it is impossible to reduce the complexity.
If some node intentionally does not sign the message, then the miner includes in the block any other UNI with a minimum value.

Says who? Bitcoin is not patented by anybody and no one is entitled to speak on behalf of it.

And it is the problem, unintentional forks happen too much because you have not addressed the availability nightmare, There should be a consensus on what miners should include in their blocks before they start mining. I'd suggest a pre-pow phase. e.g. instead of including UNIs in the blocks let's have a PoS-only empty block each round which confirms the PoW blocks and is confirmed later by another PoW block and so on.

The branches will have the same frequency as the standard POW. Once a block hash is found that satisfies the given conditions, other miners will include it in the basis of the next block. Signature nodes will start issuing UNI signatures for this block; they will not be able to do this for another block with the same serial number. The general principles remain the same as in the standard POW, the only difference is that the complexity of the hash of the block depends on the UNI signature included in it, so that the attacker could not covertly search for the block hash and organize a 51% attack.

Who has not read yet, please read and write your comments.

Hi chaoscoinz,

I respectfully want to point out to you that the reason Proof of Stake, BFT, Proof of Weight, DPOS appear attractive relative to Proof of Work to you, is because you have not really studied any of them.

A signature-based security model can be fine in a limited group. In contrast, a digital currency's blockchain is public and open. Proof of Work means a connection with reality, a reality proof. Meanwhile cryptographic signatures are free and outside of a specific context don't prove anything.

Regarding PoS please see https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy and https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/on-stake-and-consensus.pdf . PoS has a "proof of nothing" issue which makes it impossible to sync PoS chains from their genesis block. In other words, there is no security at all.

Also EOS is a billion dollar scam, and Tron according to its founder is a shitcoin.

Just wanted to help you get these clear. Glad to see you in this space, always keep learning,

Asterisk