Does your new paper contain the advance in technology and knowledge that is needed to produce a truely trusted solution that equals or surpasses the security of proof-of-work and Nakamoto Consensus?
That is a good question and I won't know I guess until we publish - but my point is not that I think my system will be *better* but that it will be an alternative (even if it turns out to be less secure).
So Bitcoin would retain its "gold value" by being the "most secure" if my proof ends up being viewed as less secure.
But even so it is better to have more than one type of blockchain just in case someone finds a horrible attack that "destroys" a blockchain (i.e. being "superior" to Bitcoin is not the point at all).