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: https://proof-of-loss.money/ 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 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: https://proof-of-loss.money/