Can a Blockchain be Built Like This?
1) Alice sends Bob one X-coin.
2) The blockchain's protocol takes X and the next (say) 100 transactions and puts them in a block.
3) Distributed peer-to-peer nodes verify all the transactions in this block. They all work off the same consensus protocol block rather than creating individual competing blocks.
4) Once 51% of nodes verify and sign that all the transactions in the protocol block are legitimate (and boot illegitimate ones) the protocol stacks the (now immutable) block on the updated, broadcast and accepted chain and pays all miners a fixed percentage of the completed block's block reward (proportional to transferable mining rights they own).
As I understand it (and I probably don't), a Proof of Permit (PoP) system like this appears better than traditional Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS) systems because:
Costly calculations and energy consumption are eliminated;
Mining centralization (and it's regulatory threat) is reduced;
Distributed consensus occurs because miners work off the same block and can't advance and be paid until they concur and sign that block;
The Nothing at Stake (NoS) problem is minimized because miners simply can't create other blocks or chains;
Chronological verification and instantly immutable blocks prevent double-spending;
Coins are freed and spent instead of hoarded and staked like PoS systems;
Downward price pressure is reduced because miners don't have to sell block rewards for fiat to buy electricity for mining;
Miners are paid every time instead of sporadically over time;
PoP remains distributed, decentralized, secure and trustless;
A 51% attack remains possible if an attacker can acquire 51% of the mining rights, although this could be offset by rising permit prices as they did so, and by the fact that increased investment increases an owner's incentive to maintain their system rather than destroy it. A tenant can acquire matches and burn down their apartment building (even without having to acquire 51% of the units) but rarely does.
The above simple logic is likely wrong, I just don't know how. What technical or conceptual errors exist? Please rip this to shreds so I can try to reconstruct it better.