Can community mining bring normal users back to PoW-style rewards?

[lustchain]

PoW became powerful, but mining has also become very industrial.

ASIC farms, large pools, electricity costs and hardware cycles pushed many normal users out of mining rewards.

PoS solved some problems, but created another one:
capital concentration.

Large holders get stronger.
Small users become spectators again.

I am interested in a different idea:

community mining, where active users participate through wallet identity, heartbeat and public participation rules instead of pure hardware competition.

Example model:

- wallet-based mining identity
- active heartbeat required
- offline miners removed
- no passive rewards
- community reward layer
- public mining opens only after initial liquidity/market readiness
- anti-abuse rules against fake participation

The question is:

Can mining become accessible again for normal users?

Or is industrial mining the only realistic future now?

I would like to hear opinions from miners, especially people who have seen GPU/ASIC mining become harder for normal users.

[lustchain]

One clarification:

I am not saying traditional PoW is dead.

PoW is still one of the strongest models in crypto.

The question is whether mining can also have another category besides pure hashrate competition.

Industrial mining can exist, but maybe community participation models can also exist for networks that want wider user participation.

For example, a model where users do not receive passive rewards, but must stay active through heartbeat, wallet identity and participation rules.

The hard part is abuse control.

Wallet identity alone is not enough, because Sybil/fake participation is always a risk.

So any community mining model would need anti-abuse rules, offline removal, cooldowns and transparent monitoring.

I am interested in hearing if miners think this kind of model can work, or if mining will always return to hardware dominance.

[lustchain]

I can explain the model I am referring to more clearly.

The model is called LQC.

It is not traditional PoW, and it is not PoS.

The idea is to create a community mining layer where active users can participate in network rewards without competing only through raw hardware power.

In a normal PoW model, the main advantage goes to whoever has more hashrate, better hardware, cheaper electricity and larger scale.

In a normal PoS model, the main advantage goes to whoever has more capital staked.

LQC tries to create a different category:

active participation mining.

Basic idea:

- one wallet acts as one mining identity
- the user must run the miner/client
- the miner must stay active
- signed heartbeat proves activity
- offline miners are removed
- passive wallets do not receive rewards
- official infrastructure does not take the public mining share
- public mining opens only after initial liquidity exists

The current reward design is based on a split model:

- part of the block reward protects network stability
- part of the block reward is allocated to active public miners

For example, in LUST Chain the block reward starts at 2 LST per block.

The model is designed around:

- 70% for official/stability production
- 30% for active public mining participants

So the goal is not to say that every user can beat industrial miners with weak hardware.

The goal is different:

to create a public reward layer where real active users can participate without the whole system becoming only a hardware arms race.

The important part is anti-abuse.

A simple “one wallet = one chance” rule is not enough by itself, because Sybil/fake participation is always a risk.

That is why LQC needs:

- signed heartbeat
- active miner checks
- offline removal
- cooldowns
- monitoring
- abuse detection
- transparency on active miners and rewards

Also, mining is intentionally not opened before liquidity.

The reason is economic safety.

If rewards are distributed before the market has initial liquidity, it can create unfair early extraction and pressure before the economy is ready.

So the launch order is:

1. Genesis Liquidity Event
2. Initial liquidity creation
3. Public utility opening
4. LQC public mining
5. Staking and ecosystem products progressively

This is the model I am trying to discuss.

Do miners here think this kind of community mining layer can work?

Or will every mining model eventually return to hardware dominance?

[paqus]

Paqus is PoW Blockchain Layer 1 ,

repo https://github.com/paqusprotocol

[lustchain]

Paqus is PoW Blockchain Layer 1 ,

repo https://github.com/paqusprotocol

Thanks for sharing.

Is Paqus using pure PoW only, or does it have any additional mechanism to reduce mining centralization over time?

In my opinion, the main challenge for new PoW Layer 1 networks is not only launching mining, but keeping participation open for normal users after the network grows.

Most PoW chains eventually become dominated by large farms, cheap electricity and stronger hardware.

That is why I think new mining models need fair public participation, anti-abuse rules, active miner checks and transparent rewards.

The goal is not to make weak hardware beat industrial miners.

The goal is to create a public reward layer where real users can participate without the whole system becoming only a hardware arms race.

How does Paqus approach this problem?

[paqus]

Paqus currently uses a pure Proof-of-Work consensus based on Argon2id, with the design focusing on memory cost rather than raw compute performance.

The idea is to make mining more memory-bound, reducing the advantage of specialized hardware compared to traditional compute-intensive PoW algorithms.

In theory, Argon2 is considered much more ASIC-resistant than algorithms like SHA-256 because increasing memory bandwidth and capacity is significantly more expensive than adding compute units. However, no one can guarantee that this advantage will last forever. If there is enough economic incentive, ASICs could eventually be developed for almost any algorithm.

Our approach is therefore pragmatic: use a well-studied memory-hard PoW today, monitor the ecosystem, and remain open to improvements if the mining landscape changes in the future.

We believe long-term decentralization depends not only on the PoW algorithm itself, but also on fair protocol design and an active community.

[lustchain]

Paqus currently uses a pure Proof-of-Work consensus based on Argon2id, with the design focusing on memory cost rather than raw compute performance.

The idea is to make mining more memory-bound, reducing the advantage of specialized hardware compared to traditional compute-intensive PoW algorithms.

In theory, Argon2 is considered much more ASIC-resistant than algorithms like SHA-256 because increasing memory bandwidth and capacity is significantly more expensive than adding compute units. However, no one can guarantee that this advantage will last forever. If there is enough economic incentive, ASICs could eventually be developed for almost any algorithm.

Our approach is therefore pragmatic: use a well-studied memory-hard PoW today, monitor the ecosystem, and remain open to improvements if the mining landscape changes in the future.

We believe long-term decentralization depends not only on the PoW algorithm itself, but also on fair protocol design and an active community.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Using Argon2id as a memory-hard PoW makes sense if the goal is to reduce the immediate advantage of raw compute and specialized hardware.

I agree with your point that no PoW algorithm can guarantee permanent ASIC resistance forever if the economic incentive becomes large enough.

That is why I think the algorithm alone is only one part of the decentralization problem.

The other part is protocol and reward design.

For a community mining layer, the key questions are:

- how to prevent one entity from pretending to be many miners
- how to distinguish active users from passive wallets
- how to make rewards transparent
- how to avoid early extraction before liquidity and utility exist
- how to keep normal users involved after the network grows

So maybe the future is not only pure PoW vs PoS.

Maybe it is also about combining mining with active participation rules and anti-abuse mechanisms.

Argon2id can help reduce hardware concentration at the algorithm level.

LQC-style community mining tries to reduce participation concentration at the reward-layer level.

Both approaches are interesting.

Good luck with Paqus. I will follow how it develops.

[paqus]

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. Those are all valid points, and we agree that decentralization is about much more than the hashing algorithm alone.

Argon2id addresses one part of the problem by making mining memory-hard, which helps reduce the advantage of specialized hardware. However, we also recognize that no PoW algorithm can guarantee permanent ASIC resistance if the economic incentives become large enough.

For Paqus, our current priority is to build a simple, transparent, and secure PoW network. As the ecosystem matures, we will continue evaluating ideas that can improve fairness and long-term decentralization without compromising the core principles of the protocol.

The concepts you mentioned—active participation, transparent rewards, and anti-abuse mechanisms—are interesting research directions. We believe any additional mechanisms should be carefully designed so they enhance decentralization without introducing unnecessary complexity or sacrificing permissionless participation.

We appreciate you sharing your perspective, and feedback like this is valuable as Paqus continues to evolve.

[lustchain]

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. Those are all valid points, and we agree that decentralization is about much more than the hashing algorithm alone.

Argon2id addresses one part of the problem by making mining memory-hard, which helps reduce the advantage of specialized hardware. However, we also recognize that no PoW algorithm can guarantee permanent ASIC resistance if the economic incentives become large enough.

For Paqus, our current priority is to build a simple, transparent, and secure PoW network. As the ecosystem matures, we will continue evaluating ideas that can improve fairness and long-term decentralization without compromising the core principles of the protocol.

The concepts you mentioned—active participation, transparent rewards, and anti-abuse mechanisms—are interesting research directions. We believe any additional mechanisms should be carefully designed so they enhance decentralization without introducing unnecessary complexity or sacrificing permissionless participation.

We appreciate you sharing your perspective, and feedback like this is valuable as Paqus continues to evolve.

Thank you. I agree with that approach.

Keeping the base protocol simple, transparent and permissionless is very important. Extra mechanisms should never make the network closed, centralized or too complex for normal users.

That is also why I think these ideas need to be tested carefully over time.

Pure PoW focuses on open block production.
Memory-hard PoW can reduce hardware advantage for some time.
Community mining / reward-layer models try to improve active user participation and reduce passive extraction.

Different approaches, same broader goal: better decentralization.

I will keep following Paqus. Good luck with the development.

[safar1980]

Paqus currently uses a pure Proof-of-Work consensus based on Argon2id, with the design focusing on memory cost rather than raw compute performance.

The idea is to make mining more memory-bound, reducing the advantage of specialized hardware compared to traditional compute-intensive PoW algorithms.

In theory, Argon2 is considered much more ASIC-resistant than algorithms like SHA-256 because increasing memory bandwidth and capacity is significantly more expensive than adding compute units. However, no one can guarantee that this advantage will last forever. If there is enough economic incentive, ASICs could eventually be developed for almost any algorithm.

There are no specialized ASIC miners for the KAWPOW algorithm.
Although there are quite a few coins based on this algorithm, no ASIC manufacturer has managed to develop a solution for it, because the tasks within the algorithm change based on the hash of the previous block.

[lustchain]

Paqus currently uses a pure Proof-of-Work consensus based on Argon2id, with the design focusing on memory cost rather than raw compute performance.

The idea is to make mining more memory-bound, reducing the advantage of specialized hardware compared to traditional compute-intensive PoW algorithms.

In theory, Argon2 is considered much more ASIC-resistant than algorithms like SHA-256 because increasing memory bandwidth and capacity is significantly more expensive than adding compute units. However, no one can guarantee that this advantage will last forever. If there is enough economic incentive, ASICs could eventually be developed for almost any algorithm.

There are no specialized ASIC miners for the KAWPOW algorithm.
Although there are quite a few coins based on this algorithm, no ASIC manufacturer has managed to develop a solution for it, because the tasks within the algorithm change based on the hash of the previous block.

Good point.

KAWPOW is a good example of an algorithm-level approach to reducing ASIC advantage.

Changing work based on the previous block and making the algorithm more memory/GPU-oriented can help keep mining more accessible compared to algorithms that become dominated quickly by specialized hardware.

But I think there are two different problems here:

1. Hardware concentration
2. Participation concentration

ASIC-resistant algorithms can help with the first problem.

But even with GPU-friendly mining, a network can still face other issues:

- one entity controlling many miners
- passive wallets trying to receive rewards
- fake/Sybil participation
- early reward extraction before liquidity exists
- lack of transparency in active miner rewards

That is why I think community mining models need to think beyond only the hashing algorithm.

KAWPOW tries to reduce hardware centralization at the mining algorithm level.

LQC-style community mining tries to reduce participation concentration at the reward-layer level, using active miner checks, anti-abuse rules and transparent reward distribution.

Both directions are interesting, and maybe future networks will need a combination of algorithm design and reward-layer design.

[joniboini]

Both directions are interesting, and maybe future networks will need a combination of algorithm design and reward-layer design.

They'll have to answer whether the network is secure enough or not too. At the end of the day if it's "easy" for normal users to participate it might imply not a lot of energy or capital are spent to secure the chain. I'm sure someone will attack the chains with examples of how PoW-sylte chain got a rollback because the network lacks difficulty and whatnot.

Btw, you can merge some of your post into one. Especially when there's no reply before you make them.

[lustchain]

Both directions are interesting, and maybe future networks will need a combination of algorithm design and reward-layer design.

They'll have to answer whether the network is secure enough or not too. At the end of the day if it's "easy" for normal users to participate it might imply not a lot of energy or capital are spent to secure the chain. I'm sure someone will attack the chains with examples of how PoW-sylte chain got a rollback because the network lacks difficulty and whatnot.

Btw, you can merge some of your post into one. Especially when there's no reply before you make them.

Good point, and I agree this is one of the most important questions.

If participation is too easy, it should not mean that the chain itself becomes easy to attack.

That is why I think there must be a clear separation between:

1. base network security
2. public/community reward participation

A community mining layer should not replace the security model of the chain.

It should not allow weak participants to control block ordering, chain history, or make rollbacks easier.

The goal is different: to create a public participation and reward layer for active users, while the base network still needs enough protection, stability and difficulty to resist attacks.

So yes, if a project simply says “everyone can mine easily” but does not explain how the chain remains secure against reorgs, rollbacks, low difficulty attacks or cheap majority control, that is a serious problem.

For LQC-style mining, the idea is not “easy mining = easy chain control”.

The idea is:

- stable base production/security first
- public mining rewards only as a controlled participation layer
- active miner checks
- anti-abuse rules
- transparent reward distribution
- no public mining before liquidity
- no passive wallets receiving rewards

So I agree with you: community participation is only useful if it does not weaken the security of the chain.

Also, thanks for the forum etiquette note. I will merge/edit posts when there is no reply before posting again.