Bitcoin Forum

For example, the person with the least amount of stake in the top ten approves. how is it? do you have?

In any system where the least powerful participant gets some coins, each big miner can just pretend that he is thousands or millions of miners.

IMO that would be a disaster. First of all, what's the incentive for miners or stakers to buy the coins? How can the network be secure if contributing more to the network is not rewarded proportionally? Etc. In that scenario, everyone is being discouraged from being the top holder, I won't be surprised if there's a ton of selling activity when the price plummets.

And what stops a scammer make 10 000 000 minimal wallets and perform an attack?

It's easier to be doing the minimum work than to be doing the most work. :)

Anyone can do minimal work but as you increase the threshold, then the size becomes exponentially smaller.

Yes, we have that kind of network and it is called regtest. The difficulty is at the lowest possible level and you can mine the whole coin supply in no time.

It does not change anything. You can have Proof of Work, Proof of Stake or Proof of Anything, but if you are rewarded reverse proportionally to your efforts, then the whole coin supply is instantly mined. In PoW minimum it is regtest, in PoS minimum it will be even worse, because you should stake zero satoshis in this model and then you always get the next block. And if everyone stakes zero satoshi, then it is reduced to PoW with minimal difficulty all the time (because there is no point in mining stronger blocks in such consensus).

imagine the top10 address richlists are
1   34xp4v.......  299,427 BTC
2   bc1qgd.......  178,011 BTC
3   1P5ZED......  116,620 BTC
4   37XuVS......  94,505 BTC
5   35hK24......  88,620 BTC
6   38Umu.......  85,064 BTC
7   1FeexV....... 79,957 BTC
8   3LYJfc........  73,601 BTC
9   bc1qa........  69,370 BTC
10   3Kzh9.......   65,502 BTC

becomes
1   34xp4v.......      233,427 BTC ->66k|
2   bc1qgd.......      178,011 BTC          v
3   1P5ZED......      116,620 BTC
4   37XuVS......      94,505 BTC
5   35hK24......      88,620 BTC
6   38Umu.......      85,064 BTC
7   1FeexV.......     79,957 BTC
8   3LYJfc........      73,601 BTC
9   bc1qa........      69,370 BTC          |
10  34xpNewkey... 66,000 BTC <-----|
11   3Kzh9.......     65,502 BTC
and all the number 1 needs to do is just be 1 satoshi higher than anyone that tries to replace him as 10


PoS was initially perceived as a fair way to get the little guys to get a chance of mining reward.
but then came syndicated stake (pooling stake) and now the little guys never get a chance

PoS is broke. but because only crap coins with no utility use it. no one is bothered to break it.
it only survives by its insignificance to not be worth trying to break
it just wont work on larger utility coins whereby there is actual competition and large value at stake

Proof of work (POW) is currently the best solution, there's been tonnes of discussion on varying models Proof of stake (POS), and I there's even been some very flawed ones put forth. While, Proof of stake works to some extent, its most certainly more flawed than Proof of work. Bitcoin uses the current implementation of proof of work, because its simply the best solution to a complex problem. Its probably not perfect, since the richer are going to benefit more, but other than the flawed design of proof of stake, I haven't personally seen another concept that would be fair.

As for your proposal, those that can afford more miners, would simply be able to diversify, and it would be relatively easy to do the least work out of the top 10. Especially if you split up your contribution into smaller miners. Its not an improvement on the existing implementation.

I would go a step further.

If the least powerful participant can mine, someone who is not mining can mine all of the blocks in a second. This is an oxymoron.

How would you define "person"? Most cryptocurrencies work with addresses, and don't have a notion of what a "person" is in the protocol.