its not a hard rule of 1 block per 10 minutes
nor a hard rule of 144 blocks a day..
those hare humanised simplified implicit/implified expectations.

explicitly
the rule TRIES to average out that there should be 2016 blocks every fortnight by adjusting the difficulty. but blocks can appear at anytime.. after 1 minute or after a couple hours.. meaning some days can have 100 some can have 200
on an average day there should be about 144block

exactly

exactly

you can never be lucky to win the lottery if you never play the game

..

luck is also the narrow view of lots of variables lining up where you cant see the variables moving. thus you think its random rather than a pattern alignment
you cant better the odds if your not finding the variables/paths/patterns

^                           ^
idiot knows he(with his declining number of chums) will do all to REKT campaign any implementation that wants to offer proposals that are not core led/endorsed/sponsored
so why ask for things he already knows is going to be slaughtered by him and his chums of centralist adoration

its like asking someone who owns a dog to make his dog poop right infront of a dog warden in a park where dog poop comes with a fine..
who would agree to do something soo obviously a waste of time just to make a warden feel happy about his job...!

he is asking for the obvious knowing the result... just to chest beat that his ass kissing chums are toing his party line efforts to keep core in power and then pretend "no one wants X they only want core"

again. him thinking it proves no one wants decentralisation.. when in fact its actually proves his censorship totalitarianism and moderation and REKT campaigns is still actively keeping a central power from decentralising thus hiding and preventing decentralisation to a point where it appears there is no desire for such

and no doomad dont reply with silly stories that distribution of the same code =decentralisation....
same code, same data = distribution. not decentralisation

..
dont you know that many dev groups have just gave up trying to fight core and just made other networks to avoid core hierarchy
even as far back as vitalik when core first popped up as a brand
(rhetorical.. of course you know. its how you want it. people to fork off to altcoins and see who follows rather than offer alternative brands to core proposal moderation, on bitcoin blockchain)

,,
here is the big picture for you
while you think this is a game of cult recruitment where you think i should be recruiting my own cult to counter your cult..
i dont need to i dont want ass-kissing nor recruits. i prefer independence and decentralisation(people figuring things out for themselves and verifying it with actual hard data and not social drama)

and even within your own cultish followers who you presumed had your beliefs tattooed to them. they are now getting the confidence to break away and question your beliefs, and finding out all by themselves their own answers, answers where your narrative is the one in the wrong
yep you are slowly losing your cult following one by one.. and as you say i had to do nothing.. well apart from just asking people to do their own research and think independently and not ask to be spoonfed

i dont need to play your cultish games. people will eventually do their own research

its not funny.. but noticeable how we all see it on the news
black unemployed guy does fraud of $100.. ends up arrested within minutes of claim.. and then dead-by-cop less than 10 minutes after being handcuffed, just metres and minutes from the scene of the fraud - g.floyd

white guy does fraud, manages to spend weeks in his resort mansion. and then carefully arrested, allowed time to even change into a suit before being shuttled away, spends a bit of time in a jail then given a free ticket to another country, allowed to take drugs in court bathroom and then allowed on bail to live with parents without a bruise or bail payment required, even after defrauding hundreds of milions-billions

(im white but i see the preferential/un-preferential  treatment of certain people)

@leg-end
you think that PoW was the only mechanism ever imagined in the cypherpunks idea house pre 2009

there were many. just because they were not called "PoS":
concepts of selected/random individuals to sign a block of data at no cost.
concepts of unit/value penalty for rule breaking
did exist

there is a reason satoshi ignored those ideas and went for PoW instead

heres an observational question for you all.. and please no heavy snake oil sales pitches please, we are beyond that point now.

lets discuss rational concepts and scenarios that actually apply to real world experiences and details and data

1. when a potential user is introduced by asking them to hand in fiat to a service and is given service database balance.. is that "bitcoin"?

2. when same service has an app that converts its service database balance, to an allotment of msat on their app which may[-or may not] have a channel that the service set up x years ago.. but  is currently sidelining funds for a current user this month, whom has no signing or 'previous state' revocation control of said funds(because its new inbound balance).. is that 'bitcoin' from the users point of view during that active channel month, or just a promise of value that "may" get settled?

think logically and rationally with a concept in mind of "not-your-keys-not-your-coin"
please no silly snake oil best case. im using the previous posts tweet advert of strikes service offering to "6million merchants" (strike/clover custodian service) as a case example

it doesnt need to be an either/or decision
try reducing hours

most people get work exhaustion/revulsion due to doing 5 days straight
im not suggesting cutting it down to 4 days straight (mon:thur work).

but try
2days work - 1day off -2 days work -weekend off

that way its still only 4 days, but broken up to only feel like a 2 day schedule between days off

that way it feels like even less work exhaustion than just reducing to
mon:thur work - then 3 days off

give that a short trial to see if it improves your mood while still getting 80% excess income from work and not a instant cut off.. if after a month it doesnt help. then make bigger choices

use that trial month as time to look into other job prospects you would enjoy or testing out if your passive income is long term sustainable as sole income or just a fluke

that is not a PoW issue

its a usernode issue
where by the usernode would have extra consensus rules in your scheme that:
things go back to "solo mining"
mine in a method that does not allow outside contribution (mining pool/syndication/external efficiency improved device)

this has nothing to do with limitation of PoW
PoW can still be used, but at a weaker difficulty to be managable to make a ID with just CPU power in X timeline(much like 2009 solo mining)

but as just said to prevent history repeating itself you will need another consensus/rule mechanism to prevent syndicating/pooling effort or using devices not CPU rated/internal to nodes device

that is the hard part. again its not related to PoW

trying to prove the ID was created by only the node and nothing helping/supporting it externally is where you need to find a solution for
most things can be emulated. EG faking IP addresses. using GPU instead of CPU multiple devices spoofed as one. one device spoofed as many

PoS does not solve this. because people can easily just run 1000 pc's all signing with the same key to have 1000 attempts of same
or have 1000 pc's with different keys to appear as different users when its actually hidden away that its just 1 person
this is called a sybil attack

satoshi chose PoW as one mechanism feature of making blocks due to the cost/effort.. thus preventing someone from cheaply broadcasting out masses of block prospects/candidates
..
the issue with having 1000 block prospect/candidates is that when a network only deems 4mb is broadcast safe per 10minutes. having a user spam out 1000 block prospect every second. then harms the bandwidth of other user nodes receiving(multiple users) millions of block prospects every second and trying to choose one out of the flood spam of blocks

having a system where only 1 prospect/candidate block is seen every 1-20minutes is safer.. thus having some form of difficulty/cost/inclusion threshold involved in the block creation is a must

mobile phone wallets connect to servers and the servers handles the blockdata. and you just get handed a small list of the unspent transaction outputs destined for your address(which servers know you have by your phones request)

where all your phones job is to use the unspent output as your fund origin and you decide who you want to spend it towards and sign it
your phone send the signed transaction to the server and the server relays it to the rest of the network

your phone (in electrums case) stores the secret key to do the signing of a transaction) where (in electrums case they dont store that secret)

some other phone apps can be even les secure where everything is server managed and the keys are on the server not your phone (Central exchange apps)

when they say "$8billion"
i feel his is not 8bill of real asset like btc.
but instead like a co-mingled total of just 20k btc($460m @$23k/coin)
and 7.5billion of the fictitious value of FTT pump token

which was a 320million circulation token that got pumped to at one point $100/ftt
to make it appear as FTC was valued at $32bill
where if only 25% of tokens sold(combined) would have a faked value of ~$7.5bill at its ATH

however this is fake value after all. not the purchase price everyone paid for the token on the days they deposited.

thus this 'users lost X' amount will shrink when calculating how much they actually deposited. rather than how much users think they are owed based on an ATH temporary event

i do not think the court would even take a market price date of oct31st as a valid 'last open value' of the tokens(under $2b)
i feel the number would be far less

however still showing as over $500m in total of all asset types and losses to give SBF a high prison time rating number

unless SBF can repay down that amount to a way way way lower number (paying off most of the debt) to save himself from decades in prison

there is no macro correlation to fiat troubles impacting bitcoin

there is the sill IDEA of FOMO/PANIC where people look for negative or positive fiat new to then spam every social media they can to try to influence people to get emotional to then pump or dump.. but thats not a real direct impact. its a pumper/dumper ass-hat trying to poke people into doing things,.. using media as the weapon

it never really works as a sustained attack or method of sustaining a certain price point.
its just temporary sideshow drama. not real economics

bitcoins VALUE(dont confuse with market price)
ist at a stable rise of

10k 2021
15k 2022
and slowly rising periodically

the market price spiked in 2021 but was never suppose to sustain up there. the 2021ATH were temporary speculation and were suppose to correct down

the correction(normal economics) was not a "crash due to FIAT woes of worldbanks"
it was just the expected effect of an after effect of a ATH

charting out each halving cycle
2012 halving 2013 ATH 2014-15 LULL period
2016 halving 2017 ATH 2018-19 LULL period
shows bitcoin is at the normal economics, where we are again in a LULL period
2020 halving 2021 ATH 2022-23 LULL period

my last post was to windfury.. as stated

moving on to OP's stuff
i tried once to get passed all your mis-use of mechanism wording and function to ask you to get to the crux/summarise what you are saying
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5436832.msg61668951#msg61668951

so
OP you are the one that is talking about 'proposals'.. POW has nothing to do with that.
however your latest post and hints else where is about proportional representation

i gather you are talking about wanting whole network involvement

but here is the thing again
are you wanting whole network involvement of the POW (this topic is wrote about POW issues after all)
meaning when you say "proposals" you actually mean possible blocks candidates outside of a pooled system?

or is it about whole network usernode involvement in code ruleset decisions(proposals)
..
if you are talking about a system where many nodes can collate transaction lists (each/independently) and secure them with a weaker(independent manageable) ID and broadcast their independent block to the network

you have to factor in how over X years people will find their own way to move away from that (as thats how bitcoin was in 2009) where by they then create mining rigs and asics and start pooling them ..
meaning your attempts is just temporary and end up returning to the same situation again

@windfury
POW is a mechanism to make an expensive id
NO where did i say useless (dont even start more social drama by injecting your own words)

satoshi chose PoW instead of PoS because Pow is useful for the fact that it has a cost component of making an ID.. its why it has the word "work" in it, because it requires effort, which means more work for a malicious user to do to undo such effort, and then re-do and then catch up. to make a malicious persons more expensive effort get any recognition

the decision was put as a consensus(separate feature) rule.

if the OP is having issues about decisions of timing or if PoS should be used, or if difficulty should be adjusted to CPU rated solving. that is a CONSENSUS issue/debate.. not a PoW debate

PoW does not make decisions. it just makes a strong ID
satoshi beautifully patched together many many different mechanisms that all had their functions to create bitcoin

the choices/decisions are part of consensus debates of what decisions should remain as set hard rule that should not be touched, or things that could be(if done safely without risk, bug, breaks of the network) changed

EG the adjustments of difficulty via counts of 'if +/- 2016 blocks per fortnight, adjust difficulty +/- accordingly' are not made by PoW its made by consensus rules in user nodes.. not inside PoW asics

PoW is not about currency issuance.. again currency issuance is not done in an ASIC. its done by user node consensus rules
it doesnt matter of a block has 1 tx or 2000 tx. it doesnt matter if the coin reward is 5000000000sats or 625000000sats. the PoW mechanism still (in simple terms) sha's a sha of the same length

funny part is

core have a hierarchy. they promote people into power via their hierarchy.
bitcoin is not self coding AI. bitcoin is wrote by devs
so stop underplaying cores involvement.

core is the only ones made into the governorship powerhouse to transform proposals into changes of the rules that ultimately get activated via their organised moderation policies where they only accept proposals that fir their roadmap

just look at the same names appearing all the time:
- the same main names in the list of contributors of each release.*
- who moderates the mailing list
- who moderates the tech category on this forum
- who moderates the BIPs
- who has merge capability...

*only exceptions to this is when they list a newbie low level volunteer to spell check a comment or translate documentation, to appear decentralised

heck even Wladimir van der Laan has admitted core is a central point of failure.. and he was the lead maintainer..

oh and if i was so controlling.. i would offer my node code out to others
but by my lack of offering it out shows im not trying to recruit people into any scheme of control
also im not asking people to stay hooked, addicted, religiously idolising one small group of gods
also i am not trying to get people to follow me. i keep telling people to become more independent more decentralised by.. for one thing DOING THEIR OWN RESEARCH outside the club hose echo chamber you have put yourself and your buddies in

i know you dont understand independent review, critiquing, verification. but you could for once try learning these concepts

funny part is

unless its [6 million new nodes.. with their own channels where 6 million merchants lock their own BTC up to have signature control of Ln liquidity value, where they decide how much to "outbound" to other channels they choose to partner upto..]
then its not introducing 6 million people to anything that even comes close to anything like bitcoin

if the social tweet were true, i say it will be strike hauling a LN liquidity of only a few btc where it sets up ghost channels where strike offers out its outbound balance to users GUI display app... but where strike has full signature control to reduce each outbound balance towards a user, when a user sends a requests strike to lessen the balance towards said customer and request strike use another channel to put balance towards  destination

which is not true bitcoin experience or bitcoin fund control at user level, but its how LN hub models work where the apps calls it "user get inbound balance"

its a shame that a BBB doesnt know what a real bitcoin transaction feels like, and pretends users of LN hubs praying to the hub to move their balance, through a bunch of other middle men negociations along a route.. "is bitcoin"

Boring Baby Below
V                      V

im just wondering.
putting aside your subtle sidestepping, misunderstandings.
you seem to be wanting a system of more random people inclusion in the PoW task or hinting about faster block times

so imagine we thrashed around for many days trying to get you to understand what Pow is..
the question is:
 is your main gripe if speaking just about PoW that you personally cant with just your CPU be part of the PoW block solving task being able to make 50btc for pennies(low effort)? is that your end goal of coming to a conclusion about your "issues with PoW" your lack of involvement due to expense?

or is it about the gap of time between blocks

---

if it is about neither of those
and about "proposals" and rulesets... thats got nothing to do with PoW and everything to do with the code inside a node, which is a separate thing entirely, called consensus (the agreement of a set of rules by consent of the masses of nodes)

again PoW has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with consensus or proposals

PoW is PURELY the mechanism to create an expensive ID of a lump of data no matter what that data inside contains(people can use PoW to identify a lump of data of library books, transactions, birth registries, medical records, anything)

PoW asics do not touch or receive the block data inside the block. not care about transaction details, number of transactions or format of transaction. it simply sha256's a sha256 with a nonce
its not complicated to create PoW

its as simple as SHA256(SHA256(data)+nonce)

and thats it
yep in its most simplest form of explaining what PoW is, is:
if prefix(4) of SHA256(SHA256(block content)+nonce) = '0000' then
ID is strong to prefix strength of levels

and thats it
bitcoin however uses 'difficulty' to calculate and adjust the prefix strength requirement

the stuff about transactions and proposals and features and functions is about CODE not PoW
Code that nodes have to verify the content. its code that looks at the data, not the PoW

its SBF mother, father brother and one other person acting as bail guarantor. so ofcourse the origins of their wealth guaranteeing his bail are to be questioned

if lets say SBF absconds and its found out the fine for absconding was paid for using SBF theft fund. then it makes a hypocrisy of the entire bail system.. by crime funding crime funding freedom from crime

@doomad

you blindman
its not about reassigning devs..

its to stop treating the core devs as the sole gods ..
its about allowing MORE devs to write code without OTHER devs being moderated out or REKT

its about not keeping core as a central point of failure via their current model of moderation

you silly fool keep thinking that only the select few devs should control bitcoin.. where you think the only option of decentralisation is breaking core up into smaller groups of the SAME guys!!!(facepalm)

get a clue.. there is a wide range of talent OUTSIDE of the core group.. i know you refuse to acknowledge it because it goes against your fandom/religion.
but for once try to look outside your small group idol admiration of core devs.  

you are soo entranched in the mindset that core=bitcoin and bitcoin=core you cant see passed your mindset

i know you to well.. you keep saying that no one should be telling core devs what to do. no one should critique or review them or Nack them. where its should only be prime core devs that Nack outsiders views
where you think no one should have veto power or vote power to stop core devs from writing new upgrades. or consent core devs code into activation .. but the whole point of a decentralised network is that no fixed group should have control to do what they like unrestricted and even against the wider communities desires for the network

you think "community" is the core devs
where they should be sole decision makers not user nodes or miners.

you are the totalitarian admirer

EVERY post i make on the subject is not about the religion YOU beleive in
                                                                            v
                                                    (core dev centric or death)

my opinion has always been that there is no "one team" but lots of teams. all on same playing field level. all working on bitcoin. (byzantine generals)
and all able to promote proposals and its the unity and cooperation that the best idea's flourish. not the idea's vetted by a core'poral

where all teams share proposals and evolve proposals into things the whole community want and need.. where lots of brands code up those proposals into many node brands and then alow general uses CHOICE of brand and also choice to vote if a proposal goes forward or not, based on desire.. not force..
where it also allows proposed ruleset readiness by all brands prior to activation

unlike your preference of mandated activation of proposals only offered in a core roadmap inspired by business sponsored/bribed core devs. where core dont require other brands to be code-ready(upgraded), thus downgrading them as non full nodes at activation by pushing them to just "unrecognised: default isvalid" new core features. until other brands catch up

fun fact
even doomads best bud blackhat recently started to gain confidence to ask the prime questions that go against doomad beleifs. and got answers from the main coder of segwit that align with what i have been saying for years. but goes against doomads narrative
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/116327/do-non-segwit-nodes-reject-segwit-transactions-with-invalid-signature (angelo is blackhatcoiner, Pieter Wuille is sipa(segwit main coder))

other buddies of doomad also gained confidence to go against doomads "soft" mindset https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5433973.0

doomad, you seem to be losing your cult and i didnt even ass kiss them.. it just took them years to wake up by themselves and start asking questions outside of your beliefs.

i dont need to control people, i dont need to recruit/as kiss people. i dont need to hand out policy for them to follow. (unlike your preference)
i just tell people to be decentralised, independent and self verify AKA do their own research

ok so the OP is not actually trying to describe or learn PoW
nor wanting to learn how bitcoin uses PoW

but wants to instead make a whole different system where PoW means something completely different.. as thats how i am reading his posts now
where he wants to create a new system without first understanding how the current system works

..
so here goes another attempt at explaining the current system
PoW is not about "selecting proposals"  or selecting a president who controls the network..
PoW is just doing a complicated method of using electric and computational time to create a strong ID that fixes the contents of a block. whereby it would take someone else more electric to go back and change that block and afix a new block ID to the changed data.. and then try to do the same for the next newest block to overtake the leading blockheight to become the valid blocks usernodes read and follow.
which to even be capable of doing this and consistantly win every block requires alot more electric spent than the entire networks worth of mining hardware

PoW has nothing to do with changing rules. its about securing the DATA inside a block with a strong and expensive ID for the blocks contents of transactions
and that is it in a nutshell
if a malicious pool owner with such massive amount of hardware to achieve repeated winning blocks. all he can ultimately do is just select (be picky) about what transactions to include or not

separately from PoW
changing the rules(proposals) requires having a majority of user nodes, or more importantly the nodes used by businesses and serives using your changed rules code.. to THEN accept blocks that may contain a new format.
meaning you need to convince user nodes to adopt your code first.. BEFORE a new block format would be accepted

thus 2 separate activities

as for who wins the block creation. its not about nodes randomly accepting something(being picky).
its about nodes receiving something random
 
its the mining pool that manages to solve the puzzle with enough difficulty faster than its opponent, and if the block meets the rules. then that is accepted as the winner

because there is a bit of 'randomness' in the blockID creation. its not always the pool with the most hashpower that wins every time.

dumbing it down by (whatever the term is for several factors above Vigintillion)
one pools attempt at making a block might be searching for the number 987654(xVigintillion)
while another pool is searching for the number 1234(xVigintillion) where the end result needs to when converted to hex have a prefix of a certain amount of zeros

their next attempts would be a different number where a different pool has to find a lower number meaning it gets to win even though other pools might have more hashpower their number this time they need to find is higher thus needing more time to find it