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.

OP,

Thank you for sharing. I just finished reading your article. Although I strongly support and appreciate your intentions, I afraid your work is not matured enough to be discussed in detail. You need to keep working on it harder both in terms of design and representation, IMO. Some points for now:

1- Combining two very different approaches to cryptocurrency and blockchain is a bold choice but it won't work without extensive research on the very basic ideas behind the approaches.

2- You are absolutely silent about the networking layer: How pow miners and stake nodes should communicate for the miner to have the signed UNI from the specific node? What do we have to do with availability issues? IOW, what happens if the ode with the respective UNI is down?

3- What happens if the designated node is malfunctioning intentionally or not and declines to sign the appropriate message?

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  

Anyway, it's my post over there:

I don't think anyone would pay a few thousand sats for a 1 sat transaction. While miners don't earn money on the Lighting Network transactions, they are paid for establishing and settling down the balance of Lightning Network channels.


The Lightning Network can't function without the blockchain. It won't replace on-chain transactions. It might decrease some of the load and encourage people to spend Bitcoin on small things since it won't cost a fortune.

So.. AntPool + BTC.com = 51%? Math checks out lmao.

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.

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.

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.

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

I cannot agree more - miners openly collude and  agree on 51% attacks right away - ABC seems REKT

BU watches for BSV ....

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.

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'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.