Could a VDF-based approach fix Bitcoin's ASIC centralization without losing hashrate-proportional fairness?

Been stress-testing an idea: replace PoW hashing with a VDF (sequential computation tied to real elapsed time) for block races, keeping everything else Bitcoin-shaped (UTXOs, halving, retargeting, etc).

The pitch for existing chains: ASIC advantage under hashing can reach 10,000x+, which is a big part of why mining centralizes around a few manufacturers/pools. A VDF closes that gap differently than memory-hard functions do: it's not about making parallelization expensive, there's nothing to parallelize, since each step's output is required as input to the next. The only lever left is raw sequential speed per core, which is why the advantage bound sits around 3-10x instead of scaling with however much hardware you throw at it. That's a permanent structural limit, not a temporary one that erodes as specialized hardware catches up (the way happened with memory-hard PoW).

I just spent weeks looking for flaws. Main worry: could one operator running many builder addresses game the race. Turns out no, once the VDF race is decided by raw speed, splitting addresses doesn't help, you still just get rewards proportional to your actual hardware. Same fairness guarantee as PoW hashrate-proportional rewards, different mechanism, smaller ASIC gap.

Whitepaper: https://github.com/Vic-Nas/lapsecoin/blob/main/docs/whitepaper.md

Code: https://github.com/Vic-Nas/lapsecoin

Looking for someone to find a real flaw in this. If the Sybil argument above is wrong, say why.