Proof of Work algorithm in the public chain.

[A.N.D.]

Sounds like typical hybrid solutions(proof of work + proof of stake). Both the current PoS and PoW consensus mechanism are not really good for decentralization. We probably could however have some kind of sustainable and decentralized PoW or use decentralized trust combined with our decentralized unique IDs. And you could just remove the consensus from PoS and let the people use it for just staking, helping decentralized networks, etc.

The algorithm is really hybrid, but not typical. Please write reviews directly according to the algorithm.

[aliashraf]

This was originally posted in tech subforum, I replied (and merited op by the way) but they moved the topic to altcoin discussion sub(!) now I understand op has started another thread here which is more active.
It is getting really crazy, mods go high on their extremism ever and ever and newbies are among the most vulnerable, somebody should do something about this madness, "Hello somebody!" As Nina Turner used to say in the good pre-corona days of dem 2020 debates  

Anyway, it's my post over there:

OP,

Thank you for sharing. I just finished reading your article. Although I strongly support and appreciate your intentions, I afraid your work is not matured enough to be discussed in detail. You need to keep working on it harder both in terms of design and representation, IMO. Some points for now:

1- Combining two very different approaches to cryptocurrency and blockchain is a bold choice but it won't work without extensive research on the very basic ideas behind the approaches.

2- You are absolutely silent about the networking layer: How pow miners and stake nodes should communicate for the miner to have the signed UNI from the specific node? What do we have to do with availability issues? IOW, what happens if the ode with the respective UNI is down?

3- What happens if the designated node is malfunctioning intentionally or not and declines to sign the appropriate message?

[A.N.D.]

This was originally posted in tech subforum, I replied (and merited op by the way) but they moved the topic to altcoin discussion sub(!) now I understand op has started another thread here which is more active.
It is getting really crazy, mods go high on their extremism ever and ever and newbies are among the most vulnerable, somebody should do something about this madness, "Hello somebody!" As Nina Turner used to say in the good pre-corona days of dem 2020 debates  

Anyway, it's my post over there:

OP,

Thank you for sharing. I just finished reading your article. Although I strongly support and appreciate your intentions, I afraid your work is not matured enough to be discussed in detail. You need to keep working on it harder both in terms of design and representation, IMO. Some points for now:

1- Combining two very different approaches to cryptocurrency and blockchain is a bold choice but it won't work without extensive research on the very basic ideas behind the approaches.

2- You are absolutely silent about the networking layer: How pow miners and stake nodes should communicate for the miner to have the signed UNI from the specific node? What do we have to do with availability issues? IOW, what happens if the ode with the respective UNI is down?

3- What happens if the designated node is malfunctioning intentionally or not and declines to sign the appropriate message?

The topic really carries over to the discussion of altcoins. Apparently, for Bitcoin, any change in the algorithm is unacceptable. Or 2 threads with the same name are not allowed. I'm not sure.


Thanks for taking the time to read. Of course, for implementation it is necessary to develop in more detail, while this is only an idea.
The interaction of miners and signing nodes occurs on mutually beneficial conditions. The miner is interested in obtaining a signature with a minimum numerical value to reduce the complexity of mining. The signing node is interested in having its signature included in the block and receiving a reward. If for some reason the miner cannot get UNI signatures, then the algorithm turns into a standard POW, since it is impossible to reduce the complexity.
If some node intentionally does not sign the message, then the miner includes in the block any other UNI with a minimum value.

[aliashraf]

The topic really carries over to the discussion of altcoins. Apparently, for Bitcoin, any change in the algorithm is unacceptable.

Says who? Bitcoin is not patented by anybody and no one is entitled to speak on behalf of it.

If some node intentionally does not sign the message, then the miner includes in the block any other UNI with a minimum value.

And it is the problem, unintentional forks happen too much because you have not addressed the availability nightmare, There should be a consensus on what miners should include in their blocks before they start mining. I'd suggest a pre-pow phase. e.g. instead of including UNIs in the blocks let's have a PoS-only empty block each round which confirms the PoW blocks and is confirmed later by another PoW block and so on.

[A.N.D.]

The topic really carries over to the discussion of altcoins. Apparently, for Bitcoin, any change in the algorithm is unacceptable.

Says who? Bitcoin is not patented by anybody and no one is entitled to speak on behalf of it.

If some node intentionally does not sign the message, then the miner includes in the block any other UNI with a minimum value.

And it is the problem, unintentional forks happen too much because you have not addressed the availability nightmare, There should be a consensus on what miners should include in their blocks before they start mining. I'd suggest a pre-pow phase. e.g. instead of including UNIs in the blocks let's have a PoS-only empty block each round which confirms the PoW blocks and is confirmed later by another PoW block and so on.

The branches will have the same frequency as the standard POW. Once a block hash is found that satisfies the given conditions, other miners will include it in the basis of the next block. Signature nodes will start issuing UNI signatures for this block; they will not be able to do this for another block with the same serial number. The general principles remain the same as in the standard POW, the only difference is that the complexity of the hash of the block depends on the UNI signature included in it, so that the attacker could not covertly search for the block hash and organize a 51% attack.

[A.N.D.]

Who has not read yet, please read and write your comments.

[a.s.t.e.r.i.s.k]

I think that proof of work is starting to become obsolete, proof of stake is better and delegated proof of stake seems to be the top contender. I know Bitcoin is the foundation but I think in the future better algorithms will come and replace both proof of stake and proof of work. You also have Byzantine Fault Tolerance and proof of weight. I think the best consensus algorithm is delegated proof of stake, Tron and EOS seem to have the most Dapps on the market and receive the most support.

Hi chaoscoinz,

I respectfully want to point out to you that the reason Proof of Stake, BFT, Proof of Weight, DPOS appear attractive relative to Proof of Work to you, is because you have not really studied any of them.

A signature-based security model can be fine in a limited group. In contrast, a digital currency's blockchain is public and open. Proof of Work means a connection with reality, a reality proof. Meanwhile cryptographic signatures are free and outside of a specific context don't prove anything.

Regarding PoS please see https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy and https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/on-stake-and-consensus.pdf . PoS has a "proof of nothing" issue which makes it impossible to sync PoS chains from their genesis block. In other words, there is no security at all.

Also EOS is a billion dollar scam, and Tron according to its founder is a shitcoin.

Just wanted to help you get these clear. Glad to see you in this space, always keep learning,

Asterisk