"Best" can be quantified by basic quantifiable metrics like transaction speed, value spent, number of transactions, who spent transactions, where in the network they are spent from etc. just depends what the network is designed/optimized for

Regarding First solution and block difficulty they are separate things. Block difficulty is constantly changing so the system approaches on 10 min block times. This means blocks will get easier or harder to solve based on how long the last block took to mine. When the network is operating smoothly nodes who propagate a solution to the POW function first are usually accepted as that makes that solution the longest chain. This usually means the first solution is accepted unless malicious/illegitimate activity is detected.

ok so the OP is not actually trying to describe or learn PoW
nor wanting to learn how bitcoin uses PoW

but wants to instead make a whole different system where PoW means something completely different.. as thats how i am reading his posts now
where he wants to create a new system without first understanding how the current system works

..
so here goes another attempt at explaining the current system
PoW is not about "selecting proposals"  or selecting a president who controls the network..
PoW is just doing a complicated method of using electric and computational time to create a strong ID that fixes the contents of a block. whereby it would take someone else more electric to go back and change that block and afix a new block ID to the changed data.. and then try to do the same for the next newest block to overtake the leading blockheight to become the valid blocks usernodes read and follow.
which to even be capable of doing this and consistantly win every block requires alot more electric spent than the entire networks worth of mining hardware

PoW has nothing to do with changing rules. its about securing the DATA inside a block with a strong and expensive ID for the blocks contents of transactions
and that is it in a nutshell
if a malicious pool owner with such massive amount of hardware to achieve repeated winning blocks. all he can ultimately do is just select (be picky) about what transactions to include or not

separately from PoW
changing the rules(proposals) requires having a majority of user nodes, or more importantly the nodes used by businesses and serives using your changed rules code.. to THEN accept blocks that may contain a new format.
meaning you need to convince user nodes to adopt your code first.. BEFORE a new block format would be accepted

thus 2 separate activities

as for who wins the block creation. its not about nodes randomly accepting something(being picky).
its about nodes receiving something random
 
its the mining pool that manages to solve the puzzle with enough difficulty faster than its opponent, and if the block meets the rules. then that is accepted as the winner

because there is a bit of 'randomness' in the blockID creation. its not always the pool with the most hashpower that wins every time.

dumbing it down by (whatever the term is for several factors above Vigintillion)
one pools attempt at making a block might be searching for the number 987654(xVigintillion)
while another pool is searching for the number 1234(xVigintillion) where the end result needs to when converted to hex have a prefix of a certain amount of zeros

their next attempts would be a different number where a different pool has to find a lower number meaning it gets to win even though other pools might have more hashpower their number this time they need to find is higher thus needing more time to find it

No, it's not. Read & learn, don't just assume.
Read about the difficulty adjustment period. The difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks, i.e. about every 2 weeks. That hardly can be seen as "continuously".


What does transaction speed means in your idea? Because the "speed" is related to the fee and the miners. So that's not a valid measure. Fee, maybe, but not speed.
Who spent the transaction? You should not know nor care who spent the transaction. Period.
Where are they? Are you kidding me? On a proper decentralized network this should never matter.
Number of transactions and so on are highly dependent on mempool, and, each node has a different mempool, so we cannot compare apples with oranges.

So.. all this "best" logic has shown (I will agree with franky1 here) that you don't know nor care about what bitcoin is and how it works, you just came with some half-baked ideas that cannot work.

Every 2 weeks does mean continuously though? Its a repeating process that is required for the network to operate properly?

When it comes to speed it cant be individually quantified but it can relatively quantified. The half-baked idea you are referring too I have already built and it works in local simulations so im not sure how half-baked it really is. Regarding who, bitcoin uses ECDSA signatures to sign transactions which means knowing who/public key is fairly essential in bitcoin. Where refers to where/how that transaction interfaced with the network.

If you dont understand how it can be done thats one thing but saying that these things are not possible is another. Rather than just saying im wrong it would be more productive for all parties to ask questions in order to understand what im trying to say. All im asking is that everyone try to come at this with an open mind because it is fundamentally a completely different approach to decentralized consensus. Let me clarify I'm not saying bitcoin is bad but rather asking the question is there potentially a better solution. Decentralized systems exists throughout nature and last I checked none of them use POW and have all lasted way longer than anything we have created.

how many times do I have to tell you I know how the POW mechanism works. If a node does not solve the POW mechanism the block proposal can not be added to the chain or evaluated. It doesnt matter if its code that looks at the data within the block, if you only have one proposal for that code to check what are you optimizing. There is nothing to compare with the proposal/block!

Just like people have unique perspectives so do nodes within a network. Stop getting caught up on the specifics of the POW function, like you said the POW function doesnt have anything to do with the data in the block which is what im trying to optimize. The POW mechanism just narrows down which proposals are eligible for evaluation/verification. Since you narrow down to one proposal using the POW mechanism you cannot compare it with anything because its all you have access to. POW and POS are both selection mechanisms for which node(s) will be involved in that blocks proposal. This is not an issue with how the POW mechanism works from a technical standpoint but how many proposals it allows to be compared and optimized.

gap of time is an issue but more its an issue of optimization. As computers and networking gets faster the network should evolve alongside technology through natural optimization. The issue is that since Bitcoins POW mechanism narrows down the proposals before the network sees them all it is very difficult for the network to optimize itself as it doesnt even have access to all the network info.

Imagine the metaverse is actually a thing and we all live in it for a majority of our lives are we still going to be relying on 10 min time capped blocks for our transactions. It works fine for what its used for now but for real daily use in a digital world it needs to innovate alongside technology. Fundamentally POW is designed to narrow down to as few proposals/nodes as possible before network consensus begins. This is the issue. The reason POW works is the same reason it wont work nearly as well in the future.

Additionally with POW:
better computers = same network output with more wasted computation

The consensus mechanisms used by Bitcoin and Ethereum, Proof of Work (POW) and Proof of Stake (POS) respectively, do have their own limitations. POW has been criticized for its high energy consumption and scalability issues, while POS has been criticized for its potential centralization of power among wealthy stakeholders.

Are you reading what I'm saying? I didnt say you said it was useless? I also didnt say to change anything within POS or POW im saying both are not ideal. I also didnt say POW made decisions. You are mostly arguing semantics.

POW Mechanism = POW function that is solved to create Block ID
POW consensus = entire system involving the POW mechanism

It doesnt feel like your even trying to understand what I'm saying your just trying to prove that I'm wrong?
Please reread what I said above regarding proportional representation as that is the root of the issue I'm speaking on.

Ah beautiful I think i'm with you now. I'm saying the issue with POW is its designed to minimize the number of solved block IDs(ideally one per block so chain doesn't split). Im also saying ideally a decentralized consensus method would involve the whole network as to get all relevant network perspectives. If the whole network was involved, however, there wouldn't be a need for a POW mechanism anymore. Im referring to a system where every node in the network creates a proposal from their own local transaction pools and the most 'efficient' proposal is automatically spread and verified/confirmed.

and yes mb proposals = possible blocks
I'm not great at turning my thoughts into words so thank you for being patient.

Incorrect,

Satoshi choose PoW because it was the only option available in 2008 for what he wanted.

Satoshi left bitcoin behind in 2011.
https://robbreport.com/lifestyle/finance/bitcoin-founder-satoshi-nakamoto-1234613022/

https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-history-and-evolution-of-proof-of-stake


Satoshi left in 2011 , Proof of Stake concept was founded in 2012.
He never choose PoW over PoS, because he had no knowledge of the newer more efficient superior PoS technology.

Had he not dropped the bitcoin community like they were foul-smelling excrement in 2011,
he might have stay long enough to replace that worthless proof of waste algorithm, that the btc cultists hold on to for pure stupidity stake.
* Satoshi believe in using program coded checkpoints to secure the blockchain, the btc cultists that took over after him quit using that security feature.*

Not only is PoW a waste of energy and a growing environmental disaster, an centralized *only 2 mining pools control over 51% of the hash rate *
it's Noise Pollution alone is getting communities to ask their governments to start banning it.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/us/north-carolina-crypto-mine-noise-weir-wxc/index.html
 
 

Proof of Stake Energy Efficient and Space Efficient and Excess Onchain Transaction Capacity and most important if you live near one, Quiet.  

Not sure how POW is connected with scaling issues? What exactly do you mean? Please elaborate.

With POS it's sort of clear - selling/giving control of the blockchain to billionaires/corporations. Never gonna happen to Bitcoin (hopefully). With the transition to POS, ETH was a shitcoin since day 1 but after POS it turned into a complete shitshow.