I get that, though I have to admit I have hard time understanding you seemingly have/had so few interest in exploring the design space starting with simple schemes, and that you still now seemingly don’t want to do it by yourself, except if I come with an irrefutable proof that there is something good to find there. Honestly when I first mentioned this scheme, which I qualified of “naive”, I was convinced that somebody would have replied “Of course we thought about it at early design stage, but then saw that we obviously cannot take it because of … which everyone will agree is a complete game killer” and I was just asking for this explanation not thinking a second, that seemingly nobody studied it before, and that this could become a serious proposal.
Anyways I just wanted to mention that your answers about the flaws I pointed out, did not convince me. And to me, whether there is a better scheme or not, this is anyway a complete game killer, enough to have me disengage fully from Cardano/ADA in the future (of course at a clever times), if the scheme is not changed (which seems probable now). And I’m very surprised you are happy with it, and seemingly suspending active research for a better model (other than reputation based).
But it is your obligation to prove that your scheme is at least as good as ours
And I just wanted to mention here that I’m not paid for anything there, so I do not have any obligations. I am here only trying to help, out of pure passion and benevolence, in you in your research and in your obligation to build a good product, by showing you attack vectors that seemingly you did not study yet, and promising schemes that seemingly you did not study yet, which could/should interest you if you’re looking for making the best choice possible. And I pointed at several times that if my help was not welcome I could leave without a problem.
Anyways I will redact in LaTeX a proof for the Nash equilibrium in my scheme, under a game model with realistic actions for the players in the real world, when I have time. I’ve got most of the things in mind, except if I missed an unexpected thing it will be possible. It might not be before a few weeks, and it will be some work, I’m not sure it is usefull to anything I that I do that, but I do not want to give the impression that it cannot be made, if it can.
On top of that I have to admit I don’t understand why you give so much importance to this Nash equilibrium story. Giving importance to ensuring that none gets more that 1/k of the ability to create blocks or too high σ/s ratio I get it. But scarifying so many things for a theoretical property , in a simplified game model…
Thank’s for reading, and thank’s for your replies! 