With the feedback on Proof-of-Loss (always privately to my email), I realized the article was hard to understand for lacking:* A more explicit definition of transaction rights.* An overview of how the algorithm works.As an abstract could not contain all that, I wrote an introduction with examples.I also adopted a suggestion of including the current block height in the proof-of-loss data once I realized:* Preventing the same proof-of-loss from chaining consecutive blocks was not the purpose of the proof-of-loss context, which did it statistically rather than logically.* The presence of that height in the block header made serial chaining easier to enforce, by removing the need to include additional block height information.While revising the algorithm, I made some corrections, mainly to:* Transaction prioritization (which now uses fees instead of rights).* Inactivity fees.Finally, the new version more aptly derives the design and often has better wording.The new text is available at:Mirelo-------- Original Message --------Subject: Proof-of-LossLocal Time: February 4, 2017 10:39 AMUTC Time: February 4, 2017 12:39 PMAn alternative consensus algorithm to both proof-of-work and proof-of-stake, proof-of-loss addresses all their deficiencies, including the lack of an organic block size limit, the risks of mining centralization, and the "nothing at stake" problem:
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin- dev