It's a bit of a weak sauce when it comes to reviewing a paper. I mean it's nice to be made aware of a paper you might care about, but it doesn't take the problem head on with solutions - maybe the paper didn't go that far?
Even the summary isn't a summary.
This is a subject that I found particularly interesting because I explored it a lot when I tried to make a new PoW (proof of work) system that wouldn't burn the planet down; which I named proof of time, in which I explored the idea of proving that time had passed, via server latency rather than computer riddles...
Sadly I didn't go further than theoretical aspect, because at this point, anyone writing a "whitepaper" related to crypto falls into the bag of unfunny clown jokes.
Even the summary isn't a summary.
This is a subject that I found particularly interesting because I explored it a lot when I tried to make a new PoW (proof of work) system that wouldn't burn the planet down; which I named proof of time, in which I explored the idea of proving that time had passed, via server latency rather than computer riddles...
Sadly I didn't go further than theoretical aspect, because at this point, anyone writing a "whitepaper" related to crypto falls into the bag of unfunny clown jokes.