You haven't provided any fixes.
And as soon as an attacker uses PoW * 106 the entire network is done.
The NQ is the equivalent of the current network -- dPoW, equihash, whatever you want -- if you believe it will be filled 24/7 with spam, then you are pre-emptively admitting that dPoW and equihash and any other security mechanisms are insufficient and will result in spam. In my proposal, it means that the NQ will be spammed. In the current network, it means that the entire network will be spammed.
Because you can't use PoW as a primary security mechanism in a world where standard mobile phones and even GPUs can have a seat at a table against a custom farm designed to spam the network. PoW works for bitcoin because billions of dollars have been spent in securing it against attackers.
I'm sorry, but comments like these rank up there in ignorance with "I heard mercury is in vaccines, so they must cause autism." You don't understand why PoW works in BTC and does not work in Nano because you are a civil engineer, just like those people do not understand why mercury is dangerous in one chemical formula but not dangerous in another formula because they did not pass high school chemistry.
I explained thoroughly in the above thread why PoW can serve as a primary security mechanism for BTC and not Nano, so I won't be repeating it here.
Might as well just use a fee network like XLM then, which will charge you far less than a few bucks a year to transact.
The conversation has always been the same, but you're too focused on "winning an argument" to learn something. PoW is crap and will never work. The reason my proposal works and allows the NQ to thrive is due to herd immunity, a concept I put into the very first post of this thread. As I stated then and keep stating, attackers have no incentive to spam the network because they have no ability to spam out the big players and it will cost too much, so the NQ will be safe because of the pointlessness of the attack.
So my proposal gives you an NQ where you can live out your fantasy of computing PoW (or paying someone else to compute it for you), while simultaneously having a different queue that you can use where you are guaranteed some amount of transactions based on how much Nano you own that nobody can take away from you -- even if they own literally every single other Nano in existence and are capable of computing PoW 10100x faster than you.
I've yet to see you list any drawbacks whatsoever to this approach.
Yeah. I just don't think you're worth responding to anymore.
No one account could take up anywhere near that in the current proposal. If someone owns 5% of all Nano, they would be able to take up at most (if split sufficiently) 5% of the PQ capacity. Scroll up a bit and look at the post that I made with an image.
They would need to own 96% of the stake to saturate 96% of the PQ.
A new account is made with a
receive transaction. It would not have zero, and (if you scroll up) we have discussed that a transaction's PoS would be equal to likely either
avg(old, new) or
max(old, new) or some other variation. This means that if a new business opened an account on the Nano network by accepting, say, 20 Nano, their very first (
open tx) block would have the priority of someone with up to 20 Nano.
This would basically make super-low-value accounts unusable, and would be little more than enforcing a minimum balance threshold. Anyone under ~0.0001 Nano would only end up with one transaction per few days or so, so we would be effectively saying that people aren't allowed to own less than that much.
The beauty of the NQ fallback is that people can have tiny amounts of Nano and even use it as the main network if (for some reason) they wanted to, while the majority of the big actors can use the PQ for the spam immunity to dissuade attackers.
If we assume that an attacker has infinite PoW, they could spam the entire network right now. In my system, if they have infinite PoW, they would still not be able to spam out the PQ. The belief is that the NQ would comprise such a small % of the total value of the network that it would not be worth spamming.
Consider this (data accurate to the ledger as of ~3 weeks ago):
- The sum of all users on the network who have 0.1 or less Nano equals just about 0.001% of the total Nano.
- The sum of all users on the network who have 1 or less Nano equals just about 0.02% of the total Nano.
- The sum of all users on the network who have 10 or less Nano equals just about 0.1% of the total Nano.
The amount of wealth spread across these tiers is basically zero in terms of the Nano network value, and so it is basically zero to an attacker. Attacking people lower than these tiers would not meaningfully effect the currency's price, which means that there's no profit to be gained. As such, an attacker has no reason to use their infinite PoW to attack the NQ anyway.
Your line (b) there means that the PQ isn't being spammed. In order for their NQ requests to be processed, the PQ must be completely cleared out. As a result, upon the completion time of (b), the PQ must be empty. This is the antithesis to a spam attack.
In addition, your line (d) [which came before 'c'] would still have to obey rule (4) of the PQ [i.e., that the receive of these sends must be timedated after the send itself].
Finally, your use of "burst... to many wallets" is misleading.
MAX_BURST is more likely a number closer to 2-3 for almost every QoS tier. You wouldn't be able to burst to that many wallets.
Not easily possible, and a different implementation entirely if it were.