doots

NEM implements an algo like Googles anti SEO / anti sybil

it's closed source though

What evidence is there 90% of Nano distribution isn't owned by a single person?

This is a major aspect of transparency in decenteralized p2p protocols, and the issue with Nano is there's no paper trail or proof that the devs didn't take all the supply.

We do know 13% of all Nano in circulation was stolen in the Bitgrail hack.

The distribution of cryptocurrency and unfair access to minting and production of what's claimed and marketed as currency is completely relevant given the subject of the paper.

The math behind Bitcoin or altcoins reveals a system that grants production of the supply to a minority which worsens with time. New users aware of the game theory behind the math know it's not worth buying or mining. Of course, one can gamble on an irrational market or the other users who lack understanding of the mechanics.

To who?

This is an academic article, making that assumption would be negligent.

The log chart is used to hide volatility.

Michael Bedford Taylor misrepresents the most important aspect of these "ASIC clouds" and the bitcoin algorithm; the puzzle of the algorithm is incredibly simple. Every implementation of a Bitcoin miner simply generates a bunch of random guesses to the hash equation.

On page 60, graph (a) Professor Taylor uses distorted manipulative log charts for finance.

The chart on page 61 is the most insanely manipulative chart I could ever imagine to represent the history and progression of Bitcoin mining in relation to hardware speed.

Try charting

  watts per block over time.

  ROI in BTC for a core i5 over time

  newly minted coins per user over time 

Michael also doesn't understand or chooses to misinform the reader and the journal about "computational demand scaling with the number of users"

The Bitcoin network grows increasingly inefficient with any additional computer hash power added, and as more users use it, it clogs due to limited bandwidth and inefficiencies of the algorithm. Additional hardware speed does nothing to scale with network growth, actually the complete opposite occurs as it requires more (energy, computer resources) to do the same thing (transactions) per second for less (rewards per user). The result of all these aspects point towards a system of rules that exploits new, uninformed users to benefit "early adopters".

Sad but not surprising to realize this guy is a professor at the University of Washington.

Is Michael Bedford Taylor promoting something here through intentional misdirection and omission of basic facts to manipulate readers?

Would Professor Michael Bedford Taylor be under a conflict of interest if he sells Bitcoins?

"the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."

Michael Crichton