However, I was able to outsmart the global elite, because I realized that if the users of the system gained more value from the system for its non-monetary function and iff that value can't be financed (i.e. its value can be leeched off by control of fungible money), and if I provided a way for the users to provide the Byzantine fault DETECTION as a check-and-balance against the power of the whales and if I provided this in a way that is not democracy and is a crab bucket mentality Nash equilibrium, then I would have defeated the problems with the concept of fungible money.
The elite simply weren't aware of these concepts, because I invented them. Nash didn't know this.
And that is what I intend to launch with BitNet.
Im quite in line with this idea
In fact my initial idea in seeing blockchain only as distributed ledger lead me to think the whole interest of pow is very limited in this context, and the same result could be achieved in way that are much simpler and less expansive risk, like "fault checking " even if the real pb is not exactly fault checking, but selecting one between two valid version , but even this could be achieved without pow. And the base cost / risk to operate distributed database is not that high.
Maybe there is something im missing.
But it could look as the whole pow thing was just inserted to put some game theory in it, and give it more speculative value or for purely economic reason ( in the sense market economy) than to really be the most efficient way to keep à decentralized ledger consistent.