what's the real proof? need reviewers for my paper

Hey everyone, So, I've put together a paper that takes a hard look at the idea that 'proof of work' really secures the network or helps solve the Byzantine Generals problem, or even anything similar. Honestly, calling it 'proof of work' is kinda misleading. The valid nonce you get online doesn’t really measure energy or prove what a miner did; it just shows the likelihood of work being done, but that’s not why it gets the green light. This leads me to think that Bitcoin isn’t just about distributed system security; it’s fundamentally about money, if we think of money as something that signals interactions. Seeing it this way just puts Bitcoin on the same level as altcoins or even centralized currencies. My paper aims to highlight how the blockchain is digitally unique. I’d really value your thoughts on this, and any tips for improving it before I try to publish: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4683277 Unique Memory: Bitcoin and the Concept of Money Abstract: The key issue with digital cash is figuring out what digital message actually represents a coin in a decentralized network. But if you think about money, it can be clearly defined through a similar communication problem among people or groups spread out. I argue that Bitcoin’s setup works well because it embodies the crucial signaling feature of a monetary token, like gold its natural uniqueness compared to the made-up uniqueness of something like a credit token. So, I suggest we think of bitcoins as digital money. On the flip side, terms like cryptocurrency, digital currency, and cash are a bit fuzzy.

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.

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 importance is implicit in the fact that it is an objective distinction, based on the properties of gold versus credit tokens. 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 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. A chain of (transaction) blocks is a chain of transactions.

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. 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. 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.

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

"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).