Thank you, Conrad, for the feedback and I think I can see your points clearly, but I would disagree that decentralised proof-of-work doesn't change game rules drastically.
You are correct about proof-of-work market splitting into "transaction-miners" and "blockchain-miners", but this is not just another way to pay the fees, it's actually completely different mechanism. Here are some arguments that might be able to convince you or at least to question your premises:

1. Since bitcoin mining is a game in which winner takes it all, modified proof-of-work will introduce a new tradeoff for the miners: either you collect more fees (increasing risk of losing reward) or you collect more proof-of-work (increasing reward win probability). This will create the missing economic link between transaction fees (BTC) and proof-of-work security costs (Hashcash PoW), creating the secondary market of transaction-mining-capable hash power / BTC. It feels like some new game dynamics arise in this setting, but I haven't run any numerical simulations yet, though I'm going to do so. 

2. Why is it possible to stop spam and DDoS of the network? The reason is that to generate transaction proof-of-work user have to spend some physical time (not money). After the user found out previous block hash he has two choices: either to start doing some work (probably with the help of transaction miners AND money) or instantly adjust fee at every moment (only money). This adds a new signalling mechanism alongside standard fee market, which will make it possible for miners to filter and do not propagate transactions with PoW less than some handicap value (of course they can always agree on some whitelist of non-spammers), thus preventing abuse of spammer transactions with competitive fees to delay valuable and important transfers of BTC.

Hope I addressed all the issues you mentioned.


On 22 June 2017 at 15:02, Conrad Burchert <conrad.burchert@googlemail.com> wrote:
As soon as there is competition for block space, people will likely outsource creating the proof of work on the transaction to "transaction miners". This would likely result in giving a fee to those transaction miners. If those are the same miners as those mining the block, we are back at the current system.

Put in other words: We are already doing this, you are paying the miner for a piece of the proof of work of the block. If you want to mine instead of paying, just mine a block and use a part of the block reward to pay the fee for another transaction.

This also does not work to prevent spam. Instead of paying the transaction fee you can just pay someone to mine proof-of-work on your spam transactions, resulting in roughly the same cost. There is no reason a normal user would be better in doing this than a spammer, likely it is the other way around as the spammer is a more reliable customer for a miner.

2017-06-21 11:55 GMT+02:00 Ilya Eriklintsev via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
Hello everyone,

recently I have got an idea that in my opinion will improve bitcoin network, making it better store-of-value for growing cyberspace and cryptoeconomy. Sorry for longread below and thank you for your time.

Decentralized proof-of-work and DDoS resistance for Bitcoin

Abstract

By introducing some new block validation rules it is possible to make Bitcoin network more secure, decentralized and DDoS resistant. The idea is to modify simple proof-of-work puzzle in such a way that user transactions could be hardened with the same proof-of-work algorithm thus incentivising all the miners to include that particular transaction. Such mechanism will effectively give a handicap to every miner who includes "mined" transaction into next block, increasing probability of him getting block reward.

Problems and motivation

This document will address the issue of a continuous DDoS attack targeting the Bitcoin network, e.g. full nodes mempools constantly being overflowed with transactions carrying small value reduce system primary ability to transfer value (and hence making it perfect store of value). Valid transactions are cheap to create (in the sense of computational effort required) and no adequate mechanism exist to make transaction total value increase probably of its confirmation by the network.

Currently, miners decide which transactions to include in blocks because it's them who are securing Bitcoin network providing proof-of-work certificates stored inside every block header. Miners have to store the whole blockchain at all times, so one of the costs is storage which grows linearly with the transaction size (blockchain size as well). Another cost is network bandwidth which depends directly on the size of data to be communicated over.

The only incentive a person who wants to transfer his bitcoins is allowed to use is setting of transaction fee, that is going directly to the miner. This solution probably was intended to utilize free market (as implied by Satoshi introducing sequence numbers) to determine appropriate fees, but that is obviously not the case, in the current bitcoin network operating in full block capacity mode. This fee market deviates significantly from a free market premise (also attempts being made to make it closer, e.g. in BIP125 where Replace-By-Fee signaling is supposed to help in replacing "stuck" transactions with noncompetitive fee).

Currently, bitcoin network is susceptible to the DDoS attack of a kind. Adversary creating and translating into the network a lot of transactions carrying small value (e.g. only miners fee), will be able to impair the ability to transfer value for everyone in the world, should he has enough money to pay the fees. Miners would continue to work providing security for the network and new blocks will consist of transaction transferring negligible value. It's a major drawback because the cost of such attack doesn't grow asymmetrically with the cost of BTC asset.

Proposed solution

So how do we incentivize all miners to include our transaction carrying a lot of value in the next block? The only thing a miner supposed to do to get a reward is to produce Hashcash proof-of-work, thus providing cryptographic security guarantees for the whole Bitcoin blockchain. What if including our transaction in a block would reduce effort requirements for the miner produce valid block?

We could do so by extending the concept of proof-of-work, in such a way that we do not sacrifice security at all. Here are both descriptions proof-of-work as-is and to-be:

Standart proof-of-work: hash(previous block hash + current block target + current block metadata + current block transactions) < target

Decentralized proof-of-work: hash(previous block hash + current block target + current block metadata + current block transactions) - sum( FFFF - hash( previous block hash + raw_tx ) ) < target

It is possible to imagine completely mining agnostic proof-of-work, for example, the following PoW would do:

Distributed (mining-agnostic) proof-of-work: sum( FFFF - hash( previous block hash + current block target + current block metadata + signed_tx ) ) < target

Described protocol change could be implemented as user activated soft-fork (described in BIP148), introducing new blocks with the modified proof-of-work concept.

Economic reasoning


An adversary whose goal is to prevent the network from transferring value will have to compete with good users hash rate using same equipment good miners will use. And it's far more complicated than competing with others using the money to pay transaction fees.

In order to investigate probable consequences of protocol upgrade and stability of implied economical equilibrium, we need an adequate game theoretical model. Such model and numerical simulation results should be obtained and studied before any protocol change could be considered by the community.

To me it seems like a win-win solution for everyone owning BTC:

Miners benefit: as the result DDoS attack will be stopped, Bitcoin becomes perfect store-of-value finally. Political decentralization of hash rate will be incentivized as mining equipment becomes relevant to every user.
Users benefit: miners will have direct incentives to include transactions deemed important by their sender and supported by some amount of proof-of-work.

Sincerely yours, Ilya Eriklintsev.

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev