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-Loss
Local Time: February 4, 2017 10:39 AM
UTC Time: February 4, 2017 12:39 PM
From: mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis.com
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
An 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: