Bitcoin Forum

Nomination Period (N): It is a period when all nodes in the network vote for the next valid block
Wait Time (W): The time between each nomination period, this value should be auto adjusted depend on the size of transaction volume.

Features:
SHA-256
No difficulty
Super Fast verification time under light/moderate transaction volume (the dynamic adjustment of 'W' is vital to have super fast verification time)

In order to negate the power of ASIC over CPU/GPU, choosing the next valid block no longer rely on first solved block first pick strategy as most existing coins do. Instead, all participate nodes would start randomly vote for the next valid block from the largest collection of published blocks during the nomination period. All published blocks in the same collection have identical set of transactions. The rewards (500 new coins) would be evenly distributed to n number of eligible participants (randomly chosen) from the largest collection.

This concept would effectively negate the advantage of FPGA/ASIC over CPU/GPU. Every mining node would have equal opportunity to solve the next block.

What do you think?

Need a lot more details.

None of this explains how such a system would work without a centralized server tallying the votes.

This doesn't seem very well thought out and seems to be trying to fix something that isn't a problem while paying no attention to the actual problems that the current system fixes.

i think this idea is worth exploring.  yes, please tell us more how it would work.

Read up on Sybil attack.

It's explained in the bitcoin whitepaper. Posting raw ideas without checking the most obvious sources (and explaining why they don't apply) doesn't make you look smart.

Ideas are cheap. I keep seeing more and more alt-coins with different hash algorithms in the hope of defeating ASIC. I simply think they were going at it the wrong way. Instead of using a more complex/exotic hash algorithms, they should rethink how rewards are distributed. I think this is the key to negate the incentive of ASIC mining.

I am not sure it is possible to completely eliminate the Sybil attack, but I could think of many many approaches to reduce such risk in a decentralize voting system.
 

Wouldn't this just shift the focus from number of hashes to number of nodes?

what if  the network only recognized 1 node per IP address ?

Yes it does. You are correct that the focus would shift away from mining power to number of nodes that could overwhelm the network. I guess we all see that the key is the decentralized voting system.

Hasn't vertcoin already defeated ASIC's? (Although i'm not so sure it's defeated super computers in the long haul if i understand it correctly).

Scrypt-N coins, Scrypt-Jane coins, Primecoin, Quarkcoin, Protoshares and more all defeat ASICs, what makes this better/different?

Do we really need another $#!+ coin?

If I may ask, what exactly are you trying to achieve by negating the advantages that ASIC mining has over CPU/GPU mining? And in what way would that benefit Bitcoin?

all these anti-asic idea's are meant to make rich ASIC farmers unable to mine right? and to make average joe able to make some profits sing small cheap equipment at home.

dont these noobs realise that if average joe can make a profit using cheap easily available products, then rich guys can afford to expand on that idea and fill warehouses with that same stuff that little jimmy has in his basement.

changing the 'proof' changes nothing ultimately. people will still be competing for a bigger slice of the pie. people will keep buying more units to attempt to outcompete others, whilst everyone continues to shoot themselves in the foot by causing the endless spiral of hashrate rise.

in the end its pointless. noobs need to accept that both bitcoin and gold has moved away from the days of being able to profit with just $10 of equipment,

what they need to realise is that although mining is not profitable with a 1ghash GPU at $300, a ASIC unit that is atleast the hashing power of 50 GPU's does not have the pricetag of 50GPU's (EG avalon miner 50Ghash under $300). i simply do not see why bitcoiners who are inspired by new technologies and new concepts, want to prevent the evolution of mining.. by recoding it to devolve it back away from ASICS.
whats next. paper algorithms where people have to hand write solutions purely to become more fair?

if a bitcoiner wants to get into mining they need to get asics as THEY ARE cheaper on the electric compared to dozens/hundreds of GPU's. the cost of one ASIC unit is also cheaper then the purchase of dozens/hundreds of GPU's. the output of bitcoins is also higher then that of dozens/hundreds of GPU's

@franky, i disagree..
they will just buy what we buy ? no they won't..
my modern PC cost me 3 thousand dollars usd and that was with a cheap $199 Radeon 7950 i got late October. (and the rest of it)
saying that they will just line a warehouse with machines like mine is silly.
considering you just said it's most cost effective to buy dirt cheap Asics.. why would they bother ?
and yeah i know about botnets and it's funny how you guy discuss how to defeat Asics at great length but ignore that equally compelling problem lol
sorry i don't buy it i think the opposite of guys like you lol

Bitcoin took off because the average user could get in on it. that was the major appeal.. don't forget that ;)

Anyway what i got from the OP was an idea that hinges on needing a decentralized angle any centralized as the guy said earlier is just dumb.
And that problem with that is code.. the more you dig into various POW type ideas the more problems pop up..
Bitcoin works its a master piece. if it was even remotely easy to make something else it would have been done years ago.

i wouldn't say can't but it's going to be pretty damn hard to actually wright the code that supercedes Bitcoin.
I have over a dozen years writing code in various languages like c and c++ and it gives me a headache trying to think of w ay to "fix" Bitcoin.
It kinda doesn't need to be fixed ..in the way we're talking about unless your against Asics maybe and yes i am against them.

@OP
Can you write your own code after you have an idea ? I know little about Bitcoin's code but i am experienced in programming enough
to say it sounds like you are way waaaaaay over your head and i get the feeling your not a programmer lol
But hey if you think you can re-invent the wheel we're all here for ya and wish you luck with that hahahha
that would be a pretty impressive accomplishment lol

I have no idea of the technical aspects of all this. I'm not a programer. But what I see is that proof of work has some issues, and I think proof of stake is just plain dumb (like I said I'm not a pro at any of this so maybe I'm wrong), but what about proof of use?

One of the problems (though I don't think it's a huge problem) is that people aren't using bitcoin, partially because there are few places to use it and partially because they want to hold it. People that accept an alt-coin as payment could be incentivized somehow. The more transactions you process the more of a "stake" you have in the mining.

I realize there are issues like how do you keep people from just paying themselves a thousand times a day, but maybe some genius here can figure all that out and give us an alt-coin that rewards us for doing with money what was meant to be done with money - move it around!