Hi all,

I have written a paper on Bitcoin's nature that challenges the notion that the 'proof of work' is a means of 'securing the network', 'encrypting energy' or anything of the sort. I argue that 'proof of work' is 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 (it is just an indication of probability). In consequence, Bitcoin is not about byzantine fault tolerance or distributed systems security; it is about money, if money is defined objectively in terms of signalling interactions. Systems thinking in fact confuses Bitcoin with an altcoin 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.