Thank you for the improved tone.

For some of the past discussion of why extant distributed ledger designs aren’t decentralized, c.f. also my comments in @Theymos’ thread as posted by @Traxo, @theheolyn, @Hyperme.sh and @CRED.me in the linked thread (i.e. @Hyperme.sh and @CRED.me being two of my permabanned accounts).

I also need time for my projects as well, I don't have time to surf through all of your responses on forums and archives on GitHub.

Please realize that I will get organized on educating the public when we have already launched something and it becomes very worthwhile to compare our project to others. At this time it is not efficient to do it piecemeal and in blog comments. Really needs some effort applied to produce some whitepapers with all the detail so that the public can be referred to those details for clarifications. And I can’t justify placing that required effort at a higher priority than coding.

also my autocorrect replaced Merkel with Merkle

I was just being overly pedantic because of the tone of your replies wasn’t allowing for the possibility that maybe I really am correct about technological issues but can’t justify the priority of preparing detailed educational documents at this time. I need for others to be reasonable with me, if they want me to be reasonable with them. Also I had in the past made that spelling error, lol.

I actually read Merkle’s original research papers in 2015 that contain his primary innovations. Note AFAIR he also basically discovered the idea for public key encryption before the claimed inventor.

How is a sharing Pool Paradigm winner take all within the P-o-w?

These issues are complex, highly detailed, and I may not be able to pull up from memory all of the details. Which is why I need to go dig back through my archives and expend time refreshing my memory and get all the arguments organized in some educational documents at some point in the future.

In any case, the reason mining is winner-take-all supersedes (subsumes) any means of making pools less resistant to centralization:

1. There’s no choice of block size (nor even Monero’s autoscaled size) which doesn’t cause winner-take-all centralization. This is a complex issue to explain and I am not going to do it in this comment. Here is a link to an excerpt from a late 2016 rough draft of my CRED project's future whitepaper. Essentially the oligarchy with greater than 50% of the hashrate (or even only 33% with selfish mining) can extract the maximum rents via transaction fees that the market will bear. So there’s a massive economic incentive for miners to form an oligarchy and they need to do so in order to enforce that the block size remain limited because if the block size is not limited then transaction fees trend lower than the costs of the marginal miners which thus forces all the hashrate to be centralized by continuously bankrupting the miners at the margin. Thus there’s no possible design which doesn’t naturally centralize due to the economics of transaction fees and proof-of-work. Monero’s adaptive block size doesn’t resolve this issue.

   Also without an oligarchy on mining, then the game theory of transaction fees (as block reward declines) is that the chain will fork into numerous competing forks and no longer converge. In an up-thread comment in our discussion, had linked for you my discussion with @zoidsoft on this facet of the issues.

   There’s some other details to this point which I am not recalling at the moment, and I do not want to go off on this tangent right now. I already participated in those lengthy detailed debates at bitcointalk.org during 2016.

2. The supply of 12/14nm ASIC chip fabs is limited and controlled by the Zionist banksters who supply the capital and loans to construct these $billion fabs. The same powers-that-be control the governments and thus can decide (from behind the curtain) who has accessed to subsidized hydroelectric power at-scale. Thus the lowest cost miners (at least at any sufficient scale) will always be at the mercy of the powers-that-be.

3. Highest cost miners operating at the margin of the BTC price are not as profitable as the lowest cost miners. Thus lowest cost miners are always able to accrue more profits per unit hashrate they control than the other miners. Thus they can reinvest this higher proportional level of profitability into obtaining more hashrate faster than the other miners.

   And this fact doesn’t even factor in the facts (which force miners to pools) that miners with more hashrate have disproportionate profits (i.e. higher than proportional to their share of the total hashrate) due to variance and moreover because they see more of the solved blocks sooner in time (and that is even without deploying the selfish mining algorithm which in theory can add even more disproportionate profits).

   EDIT: I wrote in a discussion with @smooth:

   Underlying problem is that proof-of-work mining isn’t a consistently profitable endeavor (listen to Richard’s video) which means it must be monopolized. Mining is high-risk similar to farming, the farms get aggregated because the smaller farmers eventually go bust (due to bad weather, blight, etc). This is why Bitmain was for example was toppling the applecart (and ended up apparently destroying themselves).

4. Satoshi’s pervasive use of double-hashing yet not using it for the proof-of-work indicates that he designed ASICBOOST into Bitcoin on purpose. I had a debate at BCT with @‍dinofelis about this which was deleted by the mods but it is archived at archive.org. I linked to it from one of my blogs. That gives the powers-that-be another weapon to centralize mining with and entirely surreptitiously since it’s use can’t be detected. This is yet another reason I am fairly certain the Satoshi is a research department of the Mossad in Israel. Mossad also perpetrated 9/11. And Satoshi must have known that POW is vulnerable to quantum computers but never mentioned it.

   I have some more comments about the Zionists at the Corbett Report.

What is your solution?

Not released to the public yet.