I've seen this interaction so many times now. It's great that people read these whitepapers, but what to they judge them on? They're often a one-sided technical explanation with zero objective information in terms of feasibility in the market.
There's one (apparently delayed) ICO planned, for a company that wants people to share their CPU time to train neural networks in exchange for some token. I can hardly believe that a distributed network of laptops in living rooms can be more efficient (and therefore cheaper) at doing this than centralized, purpose built hardware in data centers with efficient cooling systems (like Google's new TPU). And that's even if they figure out how to make this technology work effectively.
My colleague, though, was very impressed though, because he heard somebody say that training a neural network takes a lot of time, which is true, depending on the complexity and whether you run it on a €500 Acer laptop or on specialized hardware.
So perhaps switch the laptop for a wall based crypto-heater packed with silicon (see here for the heat output of a gaming pc vs a space heater https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Gaming-PC-vs-Spac...) and there may be some potential there, maybe Elon can throw a battery in there too...
It's certainly fascinating that for all the talk about blockchains and ICO's I've read very little about the fact that the internet has been augmented by a distributed cryptographic system available for rent, altcoins that rely more on CPU and memory and therefore discourage GPU and ASIC use might mean the network moves to more general computing power for rent, interesting times as they say.
> “Infinite Sharding Paradigm” to achieve scalability
> “Instant Hypercube Routing”
> "it will also use 2-D Distributed Ledgers."
There's no doubt that if you want to make a quick buck, this buzzword-laden series of claims will attract many greater fools. But the ongoing crypto-hubris is unattractive to say the least.