TAUcoin, has proposed a brand new consensus mechanism called Proof-of-Transactions. It proposes a fast circulation currency without inflation. Users collectively maintain the network security by doing normal economical behavior - transactions through time. With the technical innovation of "Proof Of Transaction", users are incentivized to making necessary transactions by sharing the future block reward. No advantage is given to accumulating wealth and hardware.
Learn about TAUCOIN here

We believe that Proof-of-Transaction is the best consensus mechanism when it comes to being:

•   The most secure decentralized network
•   The fairest decentralized network
•   The most environmentally friendly decentralized network

Let’s jump to the year 2040, with the assumptions that:
1.   Internet Speed has dramatically increased, from 4G to 10G.
2.   Coins (TAU) with Proof-of-Transaction mechanism are widely distributed to billions of holders
3.   TAU foundation team has successfully developed “automatic block sizes” that allows all miners to define their size and time of block generation.

The increase of internet speed allows decentralized nodes to communicate faster. With the implementation of automatic block sizes, POT network will be able to support 1000 times more transactions than today, which is about roughly 10 billion transactions every day.

By Shannon’s theory, it is impossible for one node to collect all transactions in a world-wide competitive decentralized network. Thus, there will be thousands of “mining clubs” around the world to pick up transactions from different parts of the network. They are all competing on reducing commissions and capturing as many transactions as fast as they can. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to form a 51% attack to obtain any significant share of the 10 billion fee based transactions daily, especially when one is trying to manipulate a massive amount of transactions in a 1 year sliding window.
*Proof-Of-Transaction Whitepaper*


Rules
1.   The debate starts today. Anyone in Bitcointalk is able to participate anytime until the end of the debate. The debate ends on the 30th of September.
2.   Users are required to challenge Proof of Transaction’s consensus mechanism, with no limitation to proofs, arguments and ideas. Mathematical models are welcomed.
3.   The community votes among the top 3 best arguments/ideas/proofs, and 1Million TAU + $1,000 worth of BTC are being awarded to the highest vote.
4.   The vote will happen in TAUcoin’s telegram group on 1st October, and the result is finalized on the 24th hour.
5.   The arguments/ideas/proofs are defined to be the first user to propose it under TAU’s bitcointalk thread, with supported evaluations.
6.   TAU foundation team’s arguments will not participate on the result voting. The winner of the debate can be anyone else, but TAU.
7.   TAU foundation team will reward users that propose an interesting point of view or idea. This is purely defined by the TAU foundation team; an act to encourage everyone to share their thinking.



Update:
Here is the finalist for our Debate bounty
- Akosipepot
- Lodyman
- Rexxarofmoknathal

Click to vote for your favourite debater, and help him win 1M TAU + $1000 worth of BTC!!!



Updates:

Upon further analysis, it has become our decision to disqualify Lodyman based on Rule No,2 "Users are required to challenge Proof of Transaction’s consensus mechanism, with no limitation to proofs, arguments and ideas. Mathematical models are welcomed."

All votes for Lodyman will not be counted and the debate vote will end on the assigned date.



Final update: Congratulations to Akosipepot for winning our debate bounty! Please get in touch with us to claim your rewards!

1 MILLION TAU! AND $1,000? Now that's a generous challenge. Can't wait to see the innovative arguments and discussions people bring to the table, there's a huge amount of intelligent members here, so no doubt somebody will be able to rise to the challenge.

Don't be shy, you could be the first! Either you agree that Proof-of-Transaction is the best consensus or you can share your disagreement and win big!

I welcome this project , first of all as search for an alternative to POW and POS. The need for consensus alternative is well outlined at the start of the whitepaper.  That is , I do not want to be a trader or speculator to earn POW reward.  I do not want to collect or stake coins, I just want use crypto instead of fiat.

Dear Ubiubi18, thank you for the nice analysis and introduce ubi space. Regarding Sybil attacks on universal basic income,ubi crypto project, Taucoin is not an ubi project but requiring user effort or money to secure coins. Accumulating transation weight needs holders pay fees and compete to be packed up in next block. One part we soon put into whitepaper is miners need to pack higher transaction fee to increase own likelyhood to generate next block, which is randomness x fee in block. Therefore, holders transfer numerous coins among own addresses will have to pay attractive fees to be recogonized. These fees collected by miners will be distribute to club members according to the history transaction weight or transaction fee weight, between these two we have not decide.
I am in line with you on not doing centralized KYC and replacing pow/pos.

-iMorpheus

Dear Rexx...
Very happy to receive the two points and encouragement. The first point of setup auto payment percentage to club members to reduce club leaders manipulation is very good idea. We will do something in that fashion. The 2nd point, we are actively researching how to achieve auto size or auto time interval to increase transaction speed. We found potentially using transaction fee accumulation in the transaction pending pool to replace the time element and let size to be adjustable seems to achieve ideal scalability on chain.

Proof-of-transaction incentivizes users from an early stage to join a harvest club with the most harvest power. Because of this, it is unlikely that by the year 2040 there will be several thousand separate harvest clubs, as it is likely that one of the early large harvest clubs will become a majority pool, sucking up most of the new users that enter the network. In my estimation, by 2040 there will only be a few very large harvest clubs.

Potential resolution: Limit the number of members per harvest club to ~5,000.

Potential resolution 2: Require a physical authenticator for transactions.


I notice that later you state that you'll be using weighted transaction fee, rather than relative transaction number to determine the odds of who gets to mine the new block and receive the reward. However, this does not resolve the Sybil attack, it simply changes the nature of the attack. You assume that the the purpose of the sybil attack is to manipulate the network for financial gain, however, it can also be used to discredit the worth of the TAU blockchain and poison it from within. For example, if a bad actor with particularly deep pockets were to exclusively send high fee transactions in the scope of the 1-year window, then he would have the greatest chance of mining the new block. If the discrepancy between the transaction fees of the bad acting harvest club, and average harvest club is high enough, then they could mine and perhaps manipulate a significant fraction of the market, producing a situation where small, or poorly funded clubs simply cannot compete, and reducing the utility of the TAU blockchain for these individuals. A sudden increase in the transaction fees of one of the larger harvest clubs would also

Potential resolution: Limit the rate of change possible between the largest harvest clubs to ensure no club can suddenly (out-fee) the rest of the network.


Why not just fix the scaling to the relative change in transactions each month, or three months? And the relative change in the number of miners on the network.

For example if there was a 50% increase in number of transactions (A) in a 1 month period, and 50% increase in number miners (B), then there will be no scaling required. However, if either side of this is unbalanced (A /= B), then the percentage of block size increase can be calculated as A / B, if the number is below 1, then the block size is scaled down proportionally, if it is above 1, then it is scaled up proportionally

You also mention that TAUcoin is the fairest blockchain because it uses normal transactional activity in order to determine who has the highest chance of mining the next block and hence receiving their deserved fraction of the reward. However, this doesn't truly fit the definition of fair, as TAU essential inherits the biases in the users spending power. For example, a wealthy user and a poor user both start using TAU for their daily activities, the wealthy user is able to send more transactions as they have more disposable income and can afford to pay higher fees, whereas a poorer user will typically make fewer transactions, of smaller size and hence smaller fee. This system is therefore biased towards high net worth and high spending individuals.

Potential resolution: Rather than using simply the velocity of money as the main determinant of harvesting power, instead implement a second associated measure called transaction power. High power transactions would be those sent between high fee harvest clubs, and can hence be associated with high net worth. The true harvest power would be a ratio between the transaction power and transaction velocity, with transaction power acting to reduce harvest power, and transaction velocity acting to increase it. Though, overall this might incentivize network spam with low fee transactions.

Very deep insight into the mechanism.

I'd like to mention that the harvest power of the club you join doesn't affect your expected harvest reward, as long as the club is always harvesting. Harvest power and reward is exactly in linear proportion to transaction count. For this reason, putting limit on a single harvest club probably will not work, since splitting one harvest club into two will not change its combined harvest power (exactly the same chance of generating new block).

Reminds me of Grin coin and Cuckoo cycle POW. Nice recommendation

Tau foundation has not fixed up plan to control minging club to operate under 51%. One potential way during mean time is simply keeping foundation nodes to stay above 40% transaction mining power, this makes it very hard to achieve 51%. (Our current labor is focusing on mainnet, balance system, wallet, signal voting and removing time. )
It is our goal to have PC be able to intermittently run full nodes since there is no heavy computing neither storage work engaged. PC is getting more powerful everyday.
The way I understand TAU fairness is not by equalizing everyone, but reducing the entry barrier to common people. Both tau technology and coin econemy address fairness in following way: we are running bounty program for very long time to allow mininum effort to get on board TAU, hope 20 years from my perspective. We keep coin out of inflation. We reward common people essential behavior, spending money for living, rather than rich people racing on hardware and asset hoarding. I would claim we are more fair than POW and POS, but never want to claim the best and abosolute, even thought that is our long term mission.
For DDOS resistance, our mining signal system can easily allow mining leaders to randomly delegate to different address to avoid DDos. Here it is, mining club leader rent 1,000,000 IP addresses, each address associate to one TAU wallet address, then using TAU signal system randomly assign mining power to one of those 1,000,000 address, because DDos never knows club randomness to find IP to attack. I always trust randomness algo, which bitcoin is designed around, than oracles. It is our design purpose use TAU onchain signal system efficiently resist DDos and many other cool things.