Turning POW on its head

[monsterer]

Warning half baked ideas incoming:

The problem with consensus design in pseudonymous systems is sybil attack. You can't just have your nodes vote for transactions and weight by most signatures because creating multiple identities is trivially easy, such that a single individual can own multiple identities and therefore have a voting monopoly.

So, what if creating identities was not trivially easy? What if creating an identity was very hard indeed, and required expending a tremendous amount of POW effort?

In such a system miners would not generate blocks at all, but identities. Generated identities would then be able to vote on transactions, to include in blocks, with the weight of the vote being the amount of work which went into producing the identity. Identity generation would have a difficulty exactly like standard POW chains.

This would allow the block production to be decoupled from the POW solution generation, allowing for much quicker confirmations.

Of course, this does present a bit of a significant barrier to entry for the curious user, who might very well need to pay 25 BTC for an identity from a miner.

Anyway, that's about the size of it. Love to hear feedback and criticisms on whether this actually can decouple the block generation from the POW while maintaining comparable security of plain POW chains.

[ArticMine]

I can see government regulators wishing to regulate the identities.

[TPTB_need_war]

monsterer you are trying to reinvent my design? (referring to our recent discussion in my thread)

Btw, voting is already the wrong start, if you are attempting to duplicate how I was able to turn PoW on its head.

Also Bitcoin-NG already nominates a transaction confimer. Yet in my design multiple confirmers are nominated.

Hey I thought you were going to give me a chance to launch and release a paper and not go trying to reverse engineer my design in a very public manner from our discussions?

It is a free market. Do what you will.

Btw, I can't participate further due to lack of time.

[monsterer]

monsterer you are trying to reinvent my design? (referring to our recent discussion in my thread)

Btw, voting is already the wrong start, if you are attempting to duplicate how I was able to turn PoW on its head.

Not at all, I don't know how your design works, i was never able to paint the big picture. This idea is something I had in the back of my own mind for a while, but never put it down on paper.

I'm only doing so now because I think it's an interesting discussion point and might have some merit; although I haven't put more than about 2 hours thought into it


edit: as far as I know, you have never discussed making identity generation hard in your posts. Also, I have no intention of building any coin from this design, or any other as I just don't have the time. I'm doing this purely out of interest.

[monsterer]

The more I think about this, the more it looks like POS with a block reward... Since voters don't consume their identities when they vote, this will likely have problems with nothing at stake... maybe there is a way to only allow a certain number of votes from any given identity by discarding all votes over some threshold - the chain itself would be evidence of that.

[YarkoL]

The only solution I can conceive is to make
the system incentivize users to employ just one identity,
registered on the chain and rewarded by amassing trust
or other similar extra-cryptographic variable.

[bhokor]

well actually there are new systems of captchas doing a really interesting job and doin captcha solve services useless, i hope in 2016 we will get some innovations to the altcoin distribution systems beyond pow,pos,and clams system