New version of the whitepaper is out. Download from the front page.
Changes:
- New consensus-model PoS system added, old PoS system removed
- Section on Coloured Coins added
- Section on lightweight client added
- Lots of typos fixed
I have not had a chance to read over it yet and fixed typos in the last couple of sections, so forgive me if you find a bunch (they are probably present).
My brain is toast from working on this for almost 10 hours straight, so I'm going to go relax.
BILLIONS OF PEOPLE MESSAGING ME VIA PM -- I HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO REPLY TO MESSAGES BUT WILL GET BACK TO YOU ASAP. THANKS.
Hello, had to stop posting in these forums to ration my time and brainpower. However, I'm impressed and excited by your paper. I'm believe you can accomplish something here.
COMMENTS:
The ticketing system seems basically solid. I like it. But ...
1) Let's Review Yay/Nay voting?
If I vote Nay and the block is accepted, then my stake gets used and the reward is confiscated. If I vote Yea and the block is accepted, I get a stake reward.
If I vote Nay and the block is rejected, then my stake gets used and the reward is confiscated. If I vote Yea and the block is rejected, then my stake gets used and the reward is confiscated.
Voting Yay is the dominant strategy. Therefore, why have Yay/Nay voting at all? Why not just require unanimous Yay's or reject the block?
2) Have you have specified what happens when winning ticket holder(s) abstain?
Does this mean no block is mined? That's what should happen I think.
3) Ticket extensions
You also do not want afk tickets to accumulate, so the extension thing worries me a bit. Accumulation of afk tickets eventually converges to a breakdown of the blockchain. To avoid this you need to purge afk ticket holders from the voting rolls. Perhaps you plan to have predictable auditing of afk ticket holders via the extension process? That's a good start, but random auditing provides stronger incentives and saves blockchain space. My suggestion is to add one optional signature to each valid block. If you provide it, then the subsequent block gets a PoW difficulty subsidy. If you fail to provide it, the block is still valid, but the afk ticket gets invalidated. (The difficulty subsidy provides an incentive for PoW miners to recognize his signature if it appears.)
4) Inflation voting for the distant future
PoW voting does not have a precedent and worries me. Why wouldn't PoW voters continuously vote to up the PoW rewards, redistributing all the wealth to themselves. This could be a huge problem.
PoS voting has a precedent in corporations and I am comfortable with it. PoS voters benefit by voting down PoW issuance below the optimal level (market cap maximizing). You are not letting them mess with the PoW/PoS issuance ratio much, so they will do this by voting against inflation. This a very minor issue. PoS voters wouldn't do anything that threatens the currency. Therefore, I think PoS voting will work well even if the incentives are not quite perfect.
If you mix the two voting types, let PoS voters have a majority of votes (say two-thirds or more).
5) Lightweight blockchain.
http://www.bitfreak.info/files/pp2p-ccmbc-rev1.pdf seemed like a good, well-organized idea. Maybe this could influence your lightweight client in some way. Have no expertise here.
