proof of what? - reviewers needed for paper

[maanmieli]

Hi all,

I have written a paper that challenges the notion that the 'proof of work' is a means of securing the network, solving the Byzantine Generals problem, encrypting energy or anything of the sort. 'Proof of work' is in fact a misnomer, because a valid nonce one receives on the internet is not a measure of energy or proof of whatever a miner has done; the nonce indicates probability of work, but that's not why it gets accepted.

In consequence, Bitcoin is not about distributed systems security; it is about money, if money is defined objectively in terms of signalling interactions. Systems thinking just places Bitcoin at the same level as altcoins or centralised currency generally. Hence, my paper offers a demonstration of the digital uniqueness of the blockchain.

I would appreciate your comments, suggestions for improvement and publishing:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4683277

Unique Memory: Bitcoin and the Concept of Money

Abstract: The fundamental problem of digital cash lies in deciding on a digital message that represents a coin in a decentralised network. However, money can be accurately defined in terms of a similar problem of communication among dispersed individuals or groups. I show that Bitcoin’s design was successful because it captures the essential signalling property of a monetary token like a piece of gold: namely, its natural uniqueness, as opposed to the artificial uniqueness of a credit token. Therefore, I propose that bitcoins be defined as digital money. On the other hand, cryptocurrency, digital currency, cash and other traditional forms of ‘money’ should be distinguished as credit. This conceptual distinction can be reduced to the difference between ‘proof’ of work and standard cryptographic proof in solving the double-spending problem: digital money is not a product of consensus through computational effort; rather, consensus and computational effort result from digital money.

[1714545900]

1714545900

[1714545900]

1714545900

[1714545900]

1714545900

[1714545900]

1714545900

[odolvlobo]

In general, I found your paper to be confusing. I don't know who your intended readers are but perhaps it will make more sense to them. I started out making a list of criticisms but it became too long and unwieldy. Instead, I will have to summarize.

In general, some of the conclusions seem arbitrary, some distinctions don't seem important or relevant to me, and some of the arguments do not seem well-founded or they are just unconvincing. The paper lacks coherence, a clear topic, and a clear conclusion.

• The paper makes a strong distinction between money, credit, and cash without explaining the importance or relevance of the distinction.
• The paper tends to abuse the term "natural". It makes a big point about how money is naturally unique when a better description is "distinct".
• The paper takes the term "proof of work" too literally and fails to acknowledge its economic basis.
• The paper conflates a chain of blocks with a chain of transactions.
• The diagrams are unnecessary.

[maanmieli]

Too bad you did not see anything good with my paper. But thanks for taking the time!

Regarding your criticisms, could you provide arguments for your assertions? For example, you seem to have a certain conception of what's important or relevant or not arbitrary:

The paper makes a strong distinction between money, credit, and cash without explaining the importance or relevance of the distinction.

The importance is implicit in the fact that it is an objective distinction, based on the properties of gold versus credit tokens.

The paper tends to abuse the term "natural". It makes a big point about how money is naturally unique when a better description is "distinct".

Why is it better? The term "natural" is used because credit tokens are artificial or man-made; they cannot be found naturally like pieces of gold or valid nonces. Why is this not important in your view?

The paper takes the term "proof of work" too literally and fails to acknowledge its economic basis.

The paper states from the outset that 'proof of work' should not be taken literally as proof, and its function is economic or monetary. So your criticism is puzzling.

The paper conflates a chain of blocks with a chain of transactions.

A chain of (transaction) blocks is a chain of transactions.

[odolvlobo]

The paper makes a strong distinction between money, credit, and cash without explaining the importance or relevance of the distinction.

The importance is implicit in the fact that it is an objective distinction, based on the properties of gold versus credit tokens.

Credit and cash are generally considered forms of money, so it seems to me that asserting that the three are different would require some explanation.

The paper tends to abuse the term "natural". It makes a big point about how money is naturally unique when a better description is "distinct".

Why is it better? The term "natural" is used because credit tokens are artificial or man-made; they cannot be found naturally like pieces of gold or valid nonces. Why is this not important in your view?

I believe that the paper is making the point that the importance of a "naturally unique" item is that it cannot be duplicated. But, that characteristic does not necessarily depend on the item being "natural". There are "natural" things that can be duplicated, such as the color blue. The term "tangible" comes to mind, but that term is not sufficient. I think "distinct" is the term that more aptly describes the property being described.

The paper conflates a chain of blocks with a chain of transactions.

A chain of (transaction) blocks is a chain of transactions.

A chain of blocks contains chains of transactions, but they are not the same. The links between the blocks are not the same as the links between transactions.

[maanmieli]

The paper makes a strong distinction between money, credit, and cash without explaining the importance or relevance of the distinction.

The importance is implicit in the fact that it is an objective distinction, based on the properties of gold versus credit tokens.

Credit and cash are generally considered forms of money, so it seems to me that asserting that the three are different would require some explanation.

In science, definitions should adhere to objective criteria, not to what is generally considered. The paper does not try to refute cultural convention (similar to tomatoes being 'vegetables') but to provide objective definitions (tomatoes are fruits in biology). The criterion is shown at the beginning of Section 2, besides the included citation.

I believe that the paper is making the point that the importance of a "naturally unique" item is that it cannot be duplicated. But, that characteristic does not necessarily depend on the item being "natural". There are "natural" things that can be duplicated, such as the color blue.

The colour blue is not an item. Even if it were, the fact that it can be duplicated means that it is not naturally unique, not that it is not natural. The relevant distinction is natural vs. artificial origin, and the context is signal or item reception, not production. Duplication ability refers to production.

The term "tangible" comes to mind, but that term is not sufficient. I think "distinct" is the term that more aptly describes the property being described.

Two 'distinct' credit signals (e.g. authentic, hard-to-produce bills) can be received for every distinct monetary signal (gold piece). Credit's distinctiveness makes it artificially unique on reception.

A chain of blocks contains chains of transactions, but they are not the same. The links between the blocks are not the same as the links between transactions.

What is relevant to my argument of transaction uniqueness, and the provided example, is that the links between transactions correspond to links between blocks.

[SickDayIn]

"Therefore, I propose that bitcoins be defined as digital money. On the other hand, cryptocurrency, digital currency, cash and other traditional forms of ‘money’ should be distinguished as credit."

I do find it interesting in your abstract you do not consider Bitcoin to be a cryptocurrency, as you have defined both separately, one as digital money and another as credit.

[maanmieli]

"Therefore, I propose that bitcoins be defined as digital money. On the other hand, cryptocurrency, digital currency, cash and other traditional forms of ‘money’ should be distinguished as credit."

I do find it interesting in your abstract you do not consider Bitcoin to be a cryptocurrency, as you have defined both separately, one as digital money and another as credit.

Bitcoin is the system. The money is something else, and is what drives the system.

In cryptocurrency, as in traditional currency, it's the system that drives the 'money' (credit).