if it could work it would have huge benefits. with bitcoin someone with sufficient hashing power can save up a longer chain and then publish it thus reversing the transaction. with the split in responsibilities this would become highly unlikely since the miner would have to be in collusion with the winner of the transaction. it would make for secure transactions in one or two confirmations. additionally it could work well even with really fast block times. not to get too technical but the reason why very fast block times would be a bad idea for bitcoin is the shorter the block time the more advantage is gained from low latency relative to hashing power. This would encourage centralization. With a scheme like this the miners could be much more centralized without it creating a problem for reasons mentioned earlier in this paragraph.

you want to know the truth?

step 1) get a job
step 2) get a paycheck
step 3) go to localbitcoins.com
step 4) wait patiently until you either get rich or lose it all

People who author transaction blocks would be compensated with transaction fees only. But as it says in the title, this idea is broken for other reasons.

this argument i made is i think correct, but it is rather abstract, i fear that it would be lost on most people. Due to strategic considerations, for the first crypto ever, perhaps satoshi made the right choice. like you said it was the finite supply that got you into it.

Thats right. You could think of it like miners are minting empty containers and only the lottery winner can fill that container with transactions. If entries into that lottery could consist of every person who ever made a transaction than it would be HUGELY decentralized and you could literally trust a 2 confirmation transaction since it would be so unlikely that the winning miners and lottery winners could all be colluding with each other for any length of time. additionally since miners are not the ones authoring transactions a high orphan rate would very marginally reduce the security of the network meaning that you could have blocks coming in MUCH faster. it would be the holy grail of a decentralized crypto with trustworthy confirmations in seconds.

unfortunately like i said idk how to handle the problem of transaction block creators entering in a huge list of their own public keys instead of processing real transactions. im just going to have to keep thinking about it and in the mean time im going to work on learning how to actually make a crypto staring out with something much simpler. Im just going to work on trying to make my own hashcash implementation for now.

yea that would be a problem, but there is no need to have "network police". The problem that was intended to solve could be solved by having miners hash transaction blocks as well as transaction blocks hashing mining blocks. then changes to the blockchain would require the re computation of the proof of work chain.

the problem that causes this idea to be broken is that transaction block creators could include only their own keys in the block inorder to increase their chances of winning the right to mint new blocks in the future.

i have an idea about how to deal with this, but it starts to lose its elegance at that point. it might be a good idea but i dont think anyone would understand my explanation a that point.

you dont plan on living for another 130 years? i know i sure do.

I dont blame you. I wouldn't have risked missing the train over a couple of hundred dollars either.

And i TOTALLY support YOUR right to accept taxation. There is no problem at all with YOU accepting a certain level of taxation. The only problem that might arise, arises if you support me being taxed even though i do not accept a certain level of taxation.

Sure there is a better way. Its called dont engage in commerce with people who are not assured. This will protect you from people with normal time preferences. For protection against people with ridiculously low time preferences buy insurance.

Unfortunately that was the easy part, the hard parts are: convincing people that they do not need rulers inorder to have organized society; figuring out how to dismantle the state without hurting too many of the dependent people in the process; and finally figure out how to dismantle the state without invoking a suicidal rampage that could destroy all life on the planet (they have the weaponry to do that)

I dont think any anarchists are advocating going down into the basement of the whitehouse and flipping some giant frankensteinian on/off switch.

This is a false dilemma you are providing us with. Just because it isnt feasible to end statism right NOW within the next 10 seconds, doesn't mean that one must support the idea that one group of people should have the right to forcibly confiscate the property of another group.

We are in a bit of a mining equipment bubble atm. Its best to just either buy your coins or work for them.

if slavery was the simplest and easiest way of getting cotton would you support it?

does everyone sponsor their own toilet paper? no they just buy it if they want it... If you want something than you buy it, if you dont than you dont. its pretty simple.

for the rare case where free rider problems could potentially cause big problems, like national defense, if you care about the cause than it becomes incumbent upon you to take non violent measures to ensure that it gets funded.

Check the database of all people who contributed, if one of your friends isnt on it than confront him about it, if he still refuses than stop being his friend and tell all of his friends and encourage them to stop being his friend. Criticism lights up the exact same part in most peoples brains that physical pain does.

If you are an employer than automatically deduct it from your employees paychecks and use it to advertise the fact that you have a patriotic company.

If you are an entrepreneur than create a social contract, not made up statist bullishit social contract, i mean an actual piece of paper with actual words on it that people can chose to sign or not sign. You could use the crowd funding esque model where the contract only kicks in if X percent of the population sign it. In that contract people who value having national defense can formally agree to economically ostracize people who do not also sign that same contract and people can be held legally accountable for violating those terms. Assuming most of the people in the world value having a national defense, this would reverse the incentives and make it not in the interest of anyone to freeride, even the people who would have been willing to.

This could go on forever and ever. There is no need to wave guns around to force people to obey you unless what you are asking them to obey is a command for them to not to attack you.

*edit* this is off topic so if you want to discuss it at length than send a pm or make a different thread.

hard drive space is not the problem. the problem is that with larger blocks is that it gives big advantages to miners with high speed internet connections and incents people to join larger pools. inotherwords it would cause bitcoin to become more centralized.

i think this problem will be solved also, but trying to brute force a solution with larger and larger blocks is probably not wise. there are proposals that could potentially make each transaction smaller and centralized but trustless off chain ledgers that use bitcoin for clearing could take over the load for smaller transactions.

Well look around. How many gas stations accept them? How many major retailers accept them? How many of your friends are using them? Is your mom using them? don't worry you are still early to this party.

please tell us who the scammer was so that we can be safe.

yes thats my thought also.

thats a bunch of bologna. im just going to wait patiently for something more reasonable. there is a lot of potential for a 100% proof of stake coin but the code is still closed source for christ sake.