Open jring-o opened 6 years ago
If you mean how do we fix the language: there is an ongoing communication issue due to old information. I kept using the term because it is scattered around on the net in the multitude of info pages about GRC. I'm steering clear of it now.
the term proof-of-research is misleading at best.
a fix was proposed in the past. we produce a protocol defined kitty of GRC to be distributed to crunchers. we "mine" through proof-of-stake. "mining" is tied to block creation as defined in the bitcoin whitepaper.
any institution with an advisor will know this, and likely see the use of "proof-of-research" as an attempt at hype through exaggerated claims. similar to stock photos and testimonials.
We mint based on verified research contributions, we do not use proof of research. Thoughts on how to fix this?