PoW vs PoS conundrum - presenting a new form of PoA.

[jwinterm]

I don't see how PoS can help with coin emission without becoming an "interest bearing savings account" which leads to terrible divergence due to the compound interest formula.  PoS CAN work to secure the chain if it is combined with some PoW, but that's not the hard part.  The hard part is coin emission.

Ultra Low Inflation rate, of .0005% per year will stop a coin from being an interest bearing savings account,
even someone with 100 million coins will only be able to generate ~1.37 coin per day.

Adding a dead end like PoW to PoS is a waste of resources,
Every hybrid , the PoS becomes the dominate over PoW, because of the economics.


 

That must be why so many of the top coins are PoS, right? Ohyea, none in the top five are, and in the top ten there's not really a pure PoS coin either (I'll give you that dash and steem are PoS variants).

[1714617091]

1714617091

[1714617091]

1714617091

[1714617091]

1714617091

[1714617091]

1714617091

[100KN]

I don't see how PoS can help with coin emission without becoming an "interest bearing savings account" which leads to terrible divergence due to the compound interest formula.  PoS CAN work to secure the chain if it is combined with some PoW, but that's not the hard part.  The hard part is coin emission.

Ultra Low Inflation rate, of .0005% per year will stop a coin from being an interest bearing savings account,

Both the points above are simply FALSE assumptions. I suspected this earlier but no one gave a satisfying response on this thread, this link below corroborates my suspicion.

- The concern of having offered easier work to the rich is not something that needs to be solved. Everyone's money is working as hard as anybody elses. How can we selectively target one's(rich) money to perform less efficiently in earning dividends?
 - If one rich miner has 50% of the entire wealth, and the rest share the remaining 50%, if after a few years of PoA, if the wealth distribution remains the same 50%-50%, is it still a concern?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3fi4fb/why_pos_is_not_inherently_inflationary/?st=ixr00erx&sh=b936ff82

To summarize,

- PoA is truly a better solution if not great. Wherein the first step is POS(filtering based on stake) then POW(mining/work), in fact the subsequent POW part is needed mainly to secure the block chain i.e. avoiding check points and such trust mechanisms.
- The economics of pure POS seems sound to me. Where it falters, if at all, due to how consensus is reached, making it susceptible to attacks & forking.
- In fact centralization is worse in pure POW systems.
- Premine is NOT good.
- Mining with decent block rewards under PoA is good & safe for all.
- Pure Math can securing the network, pure trustless.
- Transaction fees are NOT mandatory.
- PoA does address the defeciencies of the pure POW & pure POS systems.

In fact if all miners(active/working stakeholders) are earning in the same ratio, then no one is getting poorer or richer. The non working stakeholders are getting poorer relatively, but that is desired of course.
The only thing that offsets this is transaction fees; trans fees are typically a tip and never a % of the amount. This leads to financial 'osmosis', tiny transaction fees slowly begin to concentrate to rich account holders. This is because the majority are poor or middleclass and the transaction volume contribution is much higher as compared to the minority rich. This phenomena might take years or decades to lead to concerning divergence, but it will eventually happen. So transaction fees must be ideally abolished, or at most make it optional with a cap. But never do what NXT did, the worst thing possible -> https://nxtwiki.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_are_transaction_fees_so_high.3F

So the "Rich gets richer in POS" theory is only because of this concept of transaction fees. Can we simply remove it? Short answer NO.
We need to detect loops in the transaction chains so that malicious parties don't take advantage of this, Blockchain bloat if we are lucky, or a cyclic attack of money moving from A->B and B-A over and over.

[dinofelis]

@Dinofelis,

Full Nodes perform a Validation of whether the Block meet the software code's criteria.
They Don't have to create any new blocks, to perform that function, what they do is Deny Blocks that fail the standards criteria.

The miner does the work, but the Full Nodes act as Quality Control, refusing blocks that Fail the Standards programed in the code,
you seem to have a blind spot on this.

I know everything you tell me, and I have read that several times, but my whole point is: if all non-mining nodes reject a block, SO WHAT ?   It is as if these non-mining nodes are simply not there, that's all.  Users can still send their transactions DIRECTLY to mining nodes, and mining nodes DON'T CARE what non-mining nodes may say.

Yes, 90% of all non-mining nodes may scream "invalid block !  invalid block !".  So what ?  If the miners decide to build the rest of the chain on that "invalid block" because they like it, what do these non-mining nodes have to say ?  The only thing they can observe is that from that point on, there's no valid (according to their rules) block chain any more.  But the users don't care, and the mining nodes don't care, if they agree.  The users still send their transactions to the mining nodes (directly, because the non-mining nodes may not transmit it eventually), and the mining nodes continue building the block chain that the non-mining nodes consider invalid.  Again, so what ?

So tell you what , Prove me wrong Generate a Block that has 15.5 BTC as a PoW reward instead of the 12.5 reward and get it accepted in the blockchain.

Well, then I'm a mining node (I'm making a block) if a majority of my peer MINING NODES decides so, it will get accepted, even if 90% of non-mining nodes reject it.  My peers will build onto my block.  And the non mining nodes will scream that it is a non-valid chain, and we don't care.

You can't do it because even if the miners agreed, the non mining Full Nodes will Block it because it fails the standard.
It keeps individuals from cheating the group.

Yes, and so what if they reject it ?  What happens ?  They don't put it on their own version of the block chain.  So what ?

[kiklo]

That must be why so many of the top coins are PoS, right? Ohyea, none in the top five are, and in the top ten there's not really a pure PoS coin either (I'll give you that dash and steem are PoS variants).

Just because you're an ass , does not mean the rest of the world is your toilet paper.  

PoW was the 1st consensus method, just because the majority of people have yet to understand PoW is an evolutionary dead end,  

Thomas Edison Believed their would be a DC PowerPlant every 3 miles or so to power our homes.
Tesla Believed in AC where the Power Plants could be hundreds of miles away.
The Answer was apparent, but the people of that generation argued for DC over AC for years.
Until the advantages of AC over DC power could no longer be denied.

The Answer here is also Apparent, PoS will Succeed PoW,
but there are always those that want to argue and hold on to the weaker version, just because they knew about it first.
When ASICS draw so much Power it matches a small state , Reality will hit home even for PoW diehards.  


 

[dinofelis]

- The concern of having offered easier work to the rich is not something that needs to be solved. Everyone's money is working as hard as anybody elses. How can we selectively target one's(rich) money to perform less efficiently in earning dividends?
 - If one rich miner has 50% of the entire wealth, and the rest share the remaining 50%, if after a few years of PoA, if the wealth distribution remains the same 50%-50%, is it still a concern?

Yes, you are right, if the only earnings are "inflationary earnings".  You then simply apply at the same time an "inflationary "tax" (a depreciation) of all coins, and an "inflationary interest".  This is in fact the "punishment for those that do not mine": their coins get depreciated because of the debasement by inflation, and they can just break even by minting according to their stake.

I made the mistake by considering a finite supply of coins, and an interest-bearing savings account.  *then* you get this divergence.  

I'm not sure, though, how it works out with transaction fees.  One can say the same, if people pay transaction fees, proportional to the amounts transmitted.  In this case, "non-moving" money will collect relatively more from the transaction pot than it re-distributes, and hence a non-moving amount of coins will get a higher interest rate, and hence WILL diverge.

Let us say that our rich guy with 50% of the coins, never moves his coins and hence, never pays transaction fees.  He gets 50% of the inflation, and also 50% of all transaction fees.  But he never pays a transaction fee, because his coins never move.  The remaining 50% gets also 50% of the inflation, capture also 50% of the transaction fees, but PAY ALL the transaction fees.  So in fact, there's a transmission of transaction fees from these 50% "poor" guys to the rich guy.  After a while, the rich guy has hence, say, 55% of the coins, and the poor guys, 45%.  And so on.

There is also another effect.  If you are a small coin holder, then you may not mind "minting".  If you are only using the crypto to buy stuff (which is the goal, isn't it !), then maybe the small inflationary loss you suffer doesn't matter.  It amounts to a few tens of dollars or so.  So you do not go through the hassle of setting up a running minting node.  If you are a rich guy, you won't let those important earnings (maybe we're talking about millions of dollars) get lost. 

So rich guys will be more careful in minting all the time than poor guys, and they can invest somewhat more in making sure their minting machinery works smoothly.  We're again having some economies of scale here.

[100KN]

Agree, that is why I suggested a zero transaction fee scheme. But realized the problems associated too. Not sure if loop detection and curbing of some sort improves it.
I am trying to determine all possible problems areas with reasonable solution approaches/feasibility for each first. Finally if it all makes sense to me (& some of us) I plan to embark on a new PoA project.  

So the "Rich gets richer in POS" theory is only because of this concept of transaction fees. Can we simply remove it? Short answer NO.
We need to detect loops in the transaction chains so that malicious parties don't take advantage of this, Blockchain bloat if we are lucky, or a cyclic attack of money moving from A->B and B-A over and over.

[kiklo]

@Dinofelis,

Full Nodes perform a Validation of whether the Block meet the software code's criteria.
They Don't have to create any new blocks, to perform that function, what they do is Deny Blocks that fail the standards criteria.

The miner does the work, but the Full Nodes act as Quality Control, refusing blocks that Fail the Standards programed in the code,
you seem to have a blind spot on this.

I know everything you tell me, and I have read that several times, but my whole point is: if all non-mining nodes reject a block, SO WHAT ?   It is as if these non-mining nodes are simply not there, that's all.  Users can still send their transactions DIRECTLY to mining nodes, and mining nodes DON'T CARE what non-mining nodes may say.

Yes, 90% of all non-mining nodes may scream "invalid block !  invalid block !".  So what ?  If the miners decide to build the rest of the chain on that "invalid block" because they like it, what do these non-mining nodes have to say ?  The only thing they can observe is that from that point on, there's no valid (according to their rules) block chain any more.  But the users don't care, and the mining nodes don't care, if they agree.  The users still send their transactions to the mining nodes (directly, because the non-mining nodes may not transmit it eventually), and the mining nodes continue building the block chain that the non-mining nodes consider invalid.  Again, so what ?

So tell you what , Prove me wrong Generate a Block that has 15.5 BTC as a PoW reward instead of the 12.5 reward and get it accepted in the blockchain.

Well, then I'm a mining node (I'm making a block) if a majority of my peer MINING NODES decides so, it will get accepted, even if 90% of non-mining nodes reject it.  My peers will build onto my block.  And the non mining nodes will scream that it is a non-valid chain, and we don't care.

You can't do it because even if the miners agreed, the non mining Full Nodes will Block it because it fails the standard.
It keeps individuals from cheating the group.

Yes, and so what if they reject it ?  What happens ?  They don't put it on their own version of the block chain.  So what ?

Like I said you have a blind spot, and are totally wrong in your understanding.
So mine a block with a different reward that the fixed reward and Post a transaction to show it is included in the blockchain.
Because until you do that , I am going to tell you , that you are completely & utterly wrong every time you repeat this nonsense.


 

[dinofelis]

So the "Rich gets richer in POS" theory is only because of this concept of transaction fees. Can we simply remove it? Short answer NO.
We need to detect loops in the transaction chains so that malicious parties don't take advantage of this, Blockchain bloat if we are lucky, or a cyclic attack of money moving from A->B and B-A over and over.

In fact, transaction fees are essential in the working of a block chain.  Whoever is mining/minting, has absolutely no incentive to make bigger blocks and to include transactions.  If ever there is "competition", a bigger block is always problematic compared to a smaller block, so there needs to be an incentive to make bigger blocks.

On the other hand, doing a transaction must cost something, or otherwise, there's no reason NOT to send out billions of transactions, which would explode the chain and the network.  There can be malicious (DoS) style attacks on the system, but also, as a way to find anonymity, it might be useful to do billions of transactions and mixings if it doesn't cost anything.

So transaction fees are necessary on both sides: on the miner/minter side to motivate to make bigger blocks (with the cost that comes with it) ; on the user side to limit the amount of transactions, because it costs resources in chain room and network activity.

With PoW, there's no problem with transaction fees.

My idea is that PoW is not a bad solution, but that ASIC centralisation has to be avoided.  I think that the easiest way to do so, is to have complex PoW schemes, that change regularly over time (forking).

[dinofelis]

Like I said you have a blind spot, and are totally wrong in your understanding.
So mine a block with a different reward that the fixed reward and Post a transaction to show it is included in the blockchain.
Because until you do that , I am going to tell you , that you are completely & utterly wrong every time you repeat this nonsense.

I can't do that because the MINER NODES don't agree.  So the test you propose illustrates my point: the MINER nodes decide on the protocol, because they MAKE THE BLOCK CHAIN.  If the large majority of miner nodes were to agree (which they don't in your proposal), there would not be the slightest problem for me to do so (like they do).
Whether the non-mining nodes agree or not, doesn't matter.

I will propose something else: YOU decide that your non-mining node will not accept blocks containing a transaction that I will send out.  So your "quality assessment" REFUSES that block.  If my transaction gets included in a block, what will your screaming node now do, apart from not accepting the rest of the block chain any more ?   Who is now annoyed by this node saying "NO! NOT VALID!" ?  Apart from yourself ?

Suppose now that you set up 100 000 such nodes on amazon.  You clearly have the large majority of non-mining nodes in your hands.  They ALL scream "non valid block".  So what ?

[kiklo]

Like I said you have a blind spot, and are totally wrong in your understanding.
So mine a block with a different reward that the fixed reward and Post a transaction to show it is included in the blockchain.
Because until you do that , I am going to tell you , that you are completely & utterly wrong every time you repeat this nonsense.

I can't do that because the MINER NODES don't agree.  So the test you propose illustrates my point: the MINER nodes decide on the protocol, because they MAKE THE BLOCK CHAIN.  If the large majority of miner nodes were to agree (which they don't in your proposal), there would not be the slightest problem for me to do so (like they do).
Whether the non-mining nodes agree or not, doesn't matter.

Like I said , you keep missing it.

Full Nodes agreed or disagree to update their blockchain based on the rules setup in the software code.
It does not matter what the Mining Pools want to do, if it fails the standards set in the software, the Full Nodes will orphan it.

Example,
There is a security issue with allowing coins to be generated too far ahead of the accurate time, which allows a coin generated at a future time to create more hashs and outstake everyone not faking their time. A security update was installed in the wallet code that Blocks ALL COINS created above a few minutes.
Does not matter how high the amount of coins , the difficulty , what changes are made to your individual code , or anything else, that block will be denied access for 1 reason , by all peers, it time is too far from the accurate time. No one has to generate a block to stop it, the Node's Software code will ignore it and never allow it to be included in the blockchain.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/24645i/psa_the_amount_of_full_bitcoin_nodes_is_dropping/

A full Bitcoin node is the backbone of the Bitcoin network. Miners are important, but full nodes are too.
They spread transactions across the network. They have the only copy of the entire blockchain, and run the memorypool.
Without full nodes in operation there is no Bitcoin.

 

FYI:
There are no Mining Nodes, there are mining pools of ASICS, (which don't maintain a blockchain),
There are only Full Nodes and the Mining Pools have to communicate with a Full Node , to request they add their new found block with transactions to the blockchain.
No Full Nodes and your Mining pools are Worthless.  

https://books.google.com/books?id=IXmrBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=BTC+mining+Pools+do+I+need+to+run+a+full+node&source=bl&ots=9AfWjsGmLT&sig=DmvzPcyEC3zYv2CATOBotIvRv8c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinlOXU_rbRAhUM6SYKHUvAA_cQ6AEITTAG#v=onepage&q=BTC%20mining%20Pools%20do%20I%20need%20to%20run%20a%20full%20node&f=false

[kiklo]

@100KN

I have watched alot of coins, and have yet to see one Hybrid that maintained a balance between PoS & PoW for Coin generation.

PoS always has increased coin production over PoW, within a year or 2, without fail.
Tekcoin is one example, it is a hybrid with almost no PoW generation.

ZEIT & Mintcoin dropped PoW, because of security problems of being a hybrid. (Why we both became PoS only.)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=551861.0

The Centralization issues of economics for PoW can't be solved.
(The Rich will always have the Best ASICS.)

The problem with PoS is users treat it like a interest bearing savings account, which kills its marketcap.
(Only real issue, with PoS, and the one , I plan on solving when ZEIT moves to ultra low inflation rate in ~ April 2017.) 

What I am telling you is combining the two algorithms won't make a better coin, it just adds to your security concerns. 

But if you still decide to push ahead with your PoA, I wish you good luck. 


 

[dinofelis]

Like I said , you keep missing it.

Full Nodes agreed or disagree to update their blockchain based on the rules setup in the software code.
It does not matter what the Mining Pools want to do, if it fails the standards set in the software, the Full Nodes will orphan it.

Full non-mining nodes don't "orphan" anything.  Orphaning means that miners decide to build on a previous block and neglect the orphaned block.

You seem to miss the fact that non-mining full nodes don't contribute anything, when users and miner nodes agree.

Tell me again how your 100 000 amazon nodes who "orphan" a block will influence what so ever.

[kiklo]

Like I said , you keep missing it.

Full Nodes agreed or disagree to update their blockchain based on the rules setup in the software code.
It does not matter what the Mining Pools want to do, if it fails the standards set in the software, the Full Nodes will orphan it.

Full non-mining nodes don't "orphan" anything.  Orphaning means that miners decide to build on a previous block and neglect the orphaned block.

You seem to miss the fact that non-mining full nodes don't contribute anything, when users and miner nodes agree.

Tell me again how your 100 000 amazon nodes who "orphan" a block will influence what so ever.

OK , your Blinders are still on .

THERE ARE NO MINING NODES.  ASICS DO NOT STORE THE BLOCKCHAIN!

MINING POOLS COMMUNICATE WITH FULL NODES TO GET THEIR BLOCKS ADDED TO THE BLOCKCHAIN.

NO FULL NODES, NO BLOCKCHAIN, NO BTC, GET IT!!!.

If you bothered to read that google books link , it would be apparent to you.  


 

[dinofelis]

MINING POOLS COMMUNICATE WITH FULL NODES TO GET THEIR BLOCKS ADDED TO THE BLOCKCHAIN.

Of course not.  Every mining pool, or individual miner, has a specific full node which it uses *to decide on what chain to build*.  THIS node is what I call a "mining node", the one the miner is using.  It are the rules on THAT NODE, which the miner has in hand and which he uses to decide on what chain to mine, that I'm talking about when I talk about a miner node of course.

Imagine Joe having a mining pool.  In other words, he has:
1) set up a full node
2) set up some software that will dispatch hashing tasks to his customer-ASIC mining hardware owners, which results he uses to make blocks that are VALID ACCORDING TO THE RULES ON HIS FULL NODE.
3) He needs to decide what block he will construct, and on what other block he will construct.  This, he will do as a function of what his full node tells him is the current state of the block chain.
If his full node has other rules (for instance higher block rewards) than non-mining nodes, then of course his own mined blocks will be accepted by his own node, but not by the non-mining nodes.

However, in as much as most other mining pool nodes use also his set of rules, they (that is to say, THEIR FULL NODES) will accept his block just as well AND WILL BUILD UPON IT, even though these blocks are rejected by the non-mining nodes.

Amongst themselves, the mining pools and their own nodes will make a block chain that is in agreement with THEIR rules, and there will NOT be any growing block chain around that is in agreement with the rules of the non-mining nodes, which will hence come to a grinding halt.

You are saying that miners don't have a node.  Of course they have to have a node, in order to DECIDE on what block to work, what blocks eventually to orphan and so on.  There is a DECISION to be made.  The node that makes that decision is the mining node.  It is not the owner of asics that does this: he just gets his task from the pool, and returns the results he obtains.  It is the "owner of the node and the task distribution software (the pool software)" that I call "the miner node.  He can at will, use the rules he wants to accept, or not, a block chain, and to BUILD A BLOCK OF TRANSACTIONS of his choice.

In order for this to work, one needs:

1) that the ASIC owners are in agreement with the mining pool rules (otherwise, they won't continue to work for that mining pool)
2) that most pools, representing most hashing rate, are in agreement amongst themselves on the rules
3) that the users of the coin are mostly in agreement with these rules

And that's all.

If there are now a lot of people that set up non-mining nodes that do not agree with these rules, and hence, reject about any block that comes from these miners, DOESN'T MATTER.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f3meb/what_is_the_difference_between_mining_and/

[spartacusrex]

I love POW vs POS.. 

I like POS consensus (a lot as it happens).. BUT..

The thing about a POS coin is that I can replicate the EXACT same security of a POS coin for nothing. And this is really the ONLY thing that gives a coin it's value.

Say there is a network of 100 nodes, securing a POS coin.

I can get 100 computers, copy the coin distribution, and run it with EXACTLY the same security. No problem.

I cannot do that with a POW coin. (you need all the ASIC/Hashing hardware)

I think POS definitely has a place, but it's not as a PUBLIC coin. It's FAR MORE USEFUL as a group/organisation/company PRIVATE tool. Where the value is ONLY relevant to the people running that particular network. Like a private ETH chain(once POS introduced) running the company as a DAO.

POS is a tool. Like Email is a tool. Anyone should be able to use it.

Saying GMAIL's protocol is 'inherently' more valuable than HOTMAIL/YAHOOMAIL etc etc or any other email provider just doesn't make sense.

[iamnotback]

There are so many technical errors in this thread, that the entire thread should just be ignored. It is misinformation.

Neither PoW nor PoS will be suitable because they both become centralized. Ditto any hybrid.

We need something else. Stay tuned...

Also due to stake grinding attacks, PoS can be PoW in disguise.

With PoW, there's no problem with transaction fees.

Incorrect. Transaction fees make the consensus diverge. You need to catch up on the latest research.

[alkan]

So transaction fees are necessary on both sides: on the miner/minter side to motivate to make bigger blocks (with the cost that comes with it) ; on the user side to limit the amount of transactions, because it costs resources in chain room and network activity.

I agree that you must have the right incentives on both sides but I doubt that transaction fees are the only (or the best) way of achieving that goal.

For example you could impose a rule that only blocks containing a certain number of transactions/or total transaction amount are valid.

On the other hand, you may stipulate a certain minimum coin age for a coin to be moved to another address or something like that.

Neither PoW nor PoS will be suitable because they both become centralized. Ditto any hybrid.

I think you're right.

We need something else. Stay tuned...

You may not be the only one working on a solution.

Also due to stake grinding attacks, PoS can be PoW in disguise.

There are ways of protecting a PoS coin against stake grinding attacks, as described here: http://www.neucoin.org/en/whitepaper/download (pages 32-36).
Do you also refute them as flawed?

Incorrect. Transaction fees make the consensus diverge. You need to catch up on the latest research.

Interesting. Can you point us to the latest research on this topic please?

[dinofelis]

So transaction fees are necessary on both sides: on the miner/minter side to motivate to make bigger blocks (with the cost that comes with it) ; on the user side to limit the amount of transactions, because it costs resources in chain room and network activity.

I agree that you must have the right incentives on both sides but I doubt that transaction fees are the only (or the best) way of achieving that goal.

For example you could impose a rule that only blocks containing a certain number of transactions/or total transaction amount are valid.

I don't see how, if transactions are free (don't cost anything to the one giving the transaction order), you can avoid to get billions of transactions broadcast, "just for the fun of it" or for other reasons.  Also, if I were a miner/minter, it would in any case be more profitable for me to fill blocks with *my own transactions* than with other people's transactions (because I generate them myself and there's no network delay and so on).

I don't see how these problems can be solved without:
1) a cost if you want to transact
2) a gain if you include a genuine transaction for the miner in some way.

One should always avoid "hard numbers" such as block length, number of transactions, amount of transactions etc... because then your solution cannot scale (unless you fiddle manually with the parameters, which is similar to "manual price setting", instead of a market discovering the price).

On the other hand, you may stipulate a certain minimum coin age for a coin to be moved to another address or something like that.

That would kill the "currency" aspect of the crypto.  A currency must be able to be transmitted immediately.  You're then turning the crypto into a hoarding stuff.

Neither PoW nor PoS will be suitable because they both become centralized. Ditto any hybrid.

I think you're right.

I think that this is correct when the rules are graved in stone.  When the rules can change (regular hard forks for instance) then the time needed for the divergent drives to do their evil deed may be too long and can be killed by a change.

We need something else. Stay tuned...

You may not be the only one working on a solution.

Also due to stake grinding attacks, PoS can be PoW in disguise.

There are ways of protecting a PoS coin against stake grinding attacks, as described here: http://www.neucoin.org/en/whitepaper/download (pages 32-36).
Do you also refute them as flawed?

Incorrect. Transaction fees make the consensus diverge. You need to catch up on the latest research.

Interesting. Can you point us to the latest research on this topic please?

[/quote]

I'm also interested in finding out what's wrong with transaction fees (apart the obvious divergence they cause with PoS).

But more to the point, I don't see what's wrong with "making the consensus diverge".  In fact, my idea is that a constantly hardforking, and splitting currency is a quite good crypto: it causes inflation, it kills "graving rules in stone", it avoids people thinking that the coin will go to the moon (so they don't hoard it), and it should add fluidity and flexibility.
There is no danger of "centralisation" because of the continuous splitting of the currency, that's simply not worth it.

We would then really have a currency, and not some "digital gold".

[100KN]

@100KN

I have watched alot of coins, and have yet to see one Hybrid that maintained a balance between PoS & PoW for Coin generation.

PoS always has increased coin production over PoW, within a year or 2, without fail.
Tekcoin is one example, it is a hybrid with almost no PoW generation.

What I am telling you is combining the two algorithms won't make a better coin, it just adds to your security concerns. 

But if you still decide to push ahead with your PoA, I wish you good luck. 


 

 I dont think you understood the basic working principles of the PoA that I proposed.
Let me explain again in an oversimplified sentence. PoS is the first stage to shortlist miners, actual mining i.e  signing blocks & corresponding coin generation happens in the subsequent PoW step only!

[kiklo]

MINING POOLS COMMUNICATE WITH FULL NODES TO GET THEIR BLOCKS ADDED TO THE BLOCKCHAIN.

Of course not.  Every mining pool, or individual miner, has a specific full node which it uses *to decide on what chain to build*.  THIS node is what I call a "mining node", the one the miner is using.  It are the rules on THAT NODE, which the miner has in hand and which he uses to decide on what chain to mine, that I'm talking about when I talk about a miner node of course.

If there are now a lot of people that set up non-mining nodes that do not agree with these rules, and hence, reject about any block that comes from these miners, DOESN'T MATTER.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f3meb/what_is_the_difference_between_mining_and/

This is how you gave an old man a Migraine.  


Stop calling them Mining Nodes, they are not Mining Nodes,
All of those are FULL NODES.  None of the BTC NODES MINE ANYTHING, that stopped when ASICS MINING began.

All a mining pool does is submit their block to any Full Node, and it is either accepted or rejected based on the software code the Full Node is running.
If accepted it passes it to other Full Nodes and becomes part of the blockchain.
A mining pool can run a full node or just point to one that they don't control.
But either way it is not a mining node as the nodes themselves no longer mine, the ASICS do all of the Mining.

 

FYI:
What I originally said, was the miners (even over 51%) can't submit blocks into the blockchain that breaks the rules set up by the Full Nodes, why you want to argue with that is a mystery.