Proof of Useful Intelligence (PoUI): Blockchain Consensus Beyond Energy Waste

Bryan Ng; Hiroyuki Ohsaki; Zan-Kai Chong

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Proof of Useful Intelligence (PoUI): Blockchain Consensus Beyond Energy Waste

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes Proof of Useful Intelligence (PoUI), a hybrid blockchain consensus in which workers earn coins by completing AI tasks and then stake those coins to secure the ledger, merging security with useful computation.

desk verdict A plausible design sketch for AI-backed consensus that overstates both its energy savings and its security, but is worth engaging as a vision piece. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17539 v1 pith:NFZ76E3J submitted 2025-04-24 cs.CR cs.AI

Zan-Kai Chong , Hiroyuki Ohsaki , Bryan Ng This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CRcs.AI

keywords proofofusefulintelligenceblockchainconsensusworkstakeAItaskmarketplacedecentralizedjobmarketdynamicrewardadjustmentenergyefficiency

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Proof of Useful Intelligence (PoUI) is a consensus mechanism that pays workers in cryptocurrency for completing AI tasks such as text generation, image analysis, and public-good verification, and then uses the same workers' staked coins to secure the blockchain through a proof-of-stake validator layer. The paper's central claim is that this arrangement keeps the energy efficiency of proof of stake while adding real-world utility, replacing proof of work's puzzle-solving waste. Its accounting puts PoUI at 0.6 kWh per worker-node per hour, compared with 0.1 kWh for a proof-of-stake validator and 3.51 kWh for a proof-of-work miner. If correct, PoUI would be a consensus design that produces economically valuable output instead of only consuming energy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the hybrid role structure, the energy identity $E_{\mathrm{tot}}=E_{\mathrm{sec}}+E_{\mathrm{use}}$, and the dynamic reward rule $r_{i+1}=r_i\left(1+\alpha \frac{\tilde{w}-w_i}{w_i}\right)$ applied whenever $|\tilde{w}-w_i|/w_i \ge \Delta$. The energy identity lets the paper count security energy separately from useful-work energy, so PoUI is presented as proof-of-stake security (0.1 kWh per validator) plus AI inference energy (0.5 kWh per worker). The reward rule keeps the job market stable: when workers fall below the target $\tilde{w}=250$, rewards rise to attract participation; when they exceed it, rewards fall, with a deadband $\Delta=0.05$ to suppress jitter. Validator verification, based on stake-based selection, a ban on self-validation, and majority approval of subjective outputs, is the security mechanism that connects useful tasks to ledger integrity.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be a small adversarial trial in which several validators independently review the same open-ended AI outputs, some genuine and some deliberately fabricated, measuring the agreement rate and whether majority rule rejects the fabricated ones; the central claim collapses if honest validators cannot agree on acceptable output often enough to keep fabricated work out of the chain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

PoUI's central claim is that blockchain security and useful AI computation can be merged without sacrificing proof-of-stake-level energy efficiency. The network separates four functional roles: job posters submit divisible tasks, market coordinators screen and queue jobs, workers run AI models, and validators, selected by stake, check outputs before adding blocks. Workers earn coins that can be staked, creating a path from contributor to validator; validators cannot verify their own work, and stake caps plus random selection adjustments counter concentration. The energy identity $E_{\mathrm{tot}}=E_{\mathrm{sec}}+E_{\mathrm{use}}$ separates security energy from useful-work energy, placing PoUI at 0.1 kWh per validator for security and 0.5 kWh per worker for useful AI work, for a total of 0.6 kWh per node, an 83% reduction from PoW while producing value that PoS lacks. A simulation with a target of 250 workers shows the dynamic reward rule bringing participation near target within about 25 steps and holding it there, with deviations typically within $\pm 20$ workers.

Load-bearing premise

The whole design assumes validators can cheaply and reliably decide, by running standard output-verification frameworks and taking a majority vote, whether an AI-produced answer is good enough to pay for; if subjective outputs cannot be checked in an adversarial setting, workers could submit garbage and colluding validators could approve it, breaking the ledger.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

PoUI would let a blockchain pay for useful AI work out of its normal block and task rewards, so network security and AI inference share the same hardware and energy budget.
A node that only validates spends 0.1 kWh per hour, the same as a proof-of-stake validator, while a node that both works and validates spends 0.6 kWh, still about 83% below the 3.51 kWh of a proof-of-work miner.
Workers who earn coins can stake them into validator selection, giving active contributors a path to security and governance influence, while stake caps and random selection adjustments limit dominance by large stakers.
Dynamic reward adjustment should keep the worker pool near the target set by job demand, clearing backlogs when rewards rise and avoiding over-participation when rewards fall.
PoUI broadens earlier proof-of-useful-work ideas from specialized ML training to diverse AI tasks such as text and image generation, lowering hardware and expertise barriers to participation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural next experiment is measuring inter-validator agreement on real open-ended AI tasks; if honest validators cannot agree on what counts as acceptable output at a high rate, PoUI would need a different verification layer, such as objective benchmarks or reputation-weighted review, before it can secure a ledger.
The energy comparison is order-of-magnitude: the 0.5 kWh per worker assumes full A100 utilization and ignores idle time, queuing, and network overhead, so the real-world gap between PoUI and proof of stake depends on utilization rates.
If PoUI worked, the same mechanism could subsidize public-good AI tasks, such as dataset cleaning or Wikipedia verification, by treating block rewards as a community fund, effectively turning consensus into a public-works program.
The simulation's convergence assumes workers respond linearly to reward changes with bounded noise; real human or institutional workers may respond more slowly or strategically, so the deadband and sensitivity parameters would need empirical calibration.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read on PoUI. It's a short design proposal, not a security paper, and it should be read that way. The novel part is the combination: a decentralized AI job market, PoS-style validator selection, and dynamic reward balancing. That combination doesn't appear verbatim in the cited PoUW/PoI work, and the architecture with four functional roles is clearly described. What it does well: the energy arithmetic is transparent and correct for the per-node numbers, and the paper is honest about its own limits ("Due to page limitations..."). The simulation is simple but at least demonstrates the feedback loop behaves as intended.

The soft spots are real. First, the headline is wrong: the abstract says 97% energy reduction, but the body's own comparison for PoUI is 83% (0.6 vs 3.51 kWh/node). The 97% figure is the PoS-only reduction and should not be applied to PoUI. Second, the simulation in Section V-B is circular: Eq. 11 assumes workers respond to reward changes in exactly the way Eq. 10 anticipates, so convergence to the target worker count is built into the model, not an empirical finding. That's fine if presented as a consistency check, but the text says it "validates" the mechanism. Third, and most importantly, the security claims in Section III-C don't hold. For subjective AI tasks, "multiple validators review... and require majority agreement" is not a verification protocol. There is no objective, machine-checkable success criterion, so a colluding set of validators can approve arbitrary outputs, and the smart-contract log only records votes, not correctness. The reputation system is circular because it penalizes "invalid outputs"—but determining invalidity is precisely the unsolved problem. The paper's own "future work will explore advanced attack detection" is an admission that the load-bearing mechanism is missing.

For a design sketch, this is a reasonable contribution to the PoUW/PoI conversation. I'd send it to peer review, but with the clear expectation that the abstract be corrected and the security analysis either supplied or explicitly scoped as an assumption of honest validators. Without that, the main claim of "resilience against malicious attacks" is overstated. If it's a workshop, accept conditionally; if a journal, it needs major revision. A reader tracking useful-proof-of-work proposals or AI decentralized marketplaces will find value here; the core ledger security question remains open.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Proof of Useful Intelligence (PoUI), a hybrid blockchain consensus mechanism in which workers execute AI tasks, such as text or image generation, to earn coins that can be staked, while validators selected by stake verify outputs and append blocks. The architecture introduces four functional node roles (job posters, market coordinators, workers, validators), a smart-contract-based workflow, an energy-consumption model distinguishing security energy from useful-work energy, and a dynamic reward adjustment rule designed to keep the worker population near a target. The central claims are that PoUI reduces energy relative to PoW while producing useful AI output, and that it resists malicious attacks through task screening, majority-based output verification, collusion prevention, and reputation scoring.

Significance. If substantiated, PoUI would be a timely contribution to the useful-proof-of-work and blockchain-sustainability literature, combining the energy advantages of stake-based validation with a market for AI tasks. The paper has clear virtues: the workflow is explicitly specified, the per-role energy arithmetic is transparent and easy to reproduce, and the simulation setup in Section V-B is stated with concrete parameters. However, the current contribution is closer to a design sketch than a validated system. The security claims rely on an unverified verification mechanism for subjective AI outputs, the energy comparison mixes per-miner, per-validator, and per-worker quantities without network-level scaling, and the simulation largely validates the assumptions built into the worker-response model. These gaps directly affect the paper's headline claims of consensus security and system-level energy savings.

major comments (4)

[Section III-C.2/C.3/C.4] The security claim is not established. For tasks such as text or image generation, the paper itself notes that no single correct answer exists, yet it asserts that multiple validators can review subjective tasks with majority agreement and that logging decisions detects collusion. Without an objective, machine-checkable acceptance predicate, a smart contract cannot distinguish an honest validator vote from a collusive one, and the reputation system in Section III-C.4 is circular because it presupposes that invalid outputs can be identified. The cited frameworks MCP [18] and CodeAct [19] are not output-verification oracles with defined correctness criteria, and no slashing condition is specified for validators who approve invalid work. The paper's own admission in Section III-C that 'Future work will explore advanced attack detection' acknowledges this missing core, which is load-bearing for the claim that PoUI maintains network trust and ledger integrity.
[Section IV and Table II; Abstract] The energy-reduction claim is internally inconsistent and mixes incomparable units. The abstract states a 97% energy reduction from PoW while adding value, but Sections IV-D.3 and VI report an 83% reduction based on PoUI's total 0.6 kWh/node versus PoW's 3.51 kWh/miner; 97% is only the security-energy comparison (0.1 versus 3.51). In addition, Table II's column heading 'kWh/node' actually lists per-miner, per-validator, and per-worker numbers. A system-level claim requires multiplying by the number of nodes of each type in the network, which the paper does not do. The claims should be re-scoped to per-role hardware comparisons or extended to a network-level energy model.
[Section V-B, Eq. 11; Section V-C] The simulation's apparent convergence is built into the worker-response model. Equation (11) sets w_{i+1} = w_i * beta * (1 + (r_{i+1} - r_i)/r_i) + N, with beta = 1, so the worker count responds mechanically and proportionally to reward changes, and equation (10) closes the loop by adjusting rewards to the gap. The simulation therefore demonstrates the internal consistency of the control rule, not an empirically validated property of worker participation. The claim that the mechanism 'successfully maintains the worker count near the target' should be presented as a consistency check, with sensitivity analysis and, ideally, independent behavioral evidence or a more defensive model of worker response.
[Sections I and III-D] The protocol does not make useful work necessary for consensus participation. The abstract says workers earn coins 'which are then staked to secure the network,' but Section III-D only says workers 'can then be staked' and validators are selected by stake. Any coin holder can become a validator without performing AI tasks, so the security layer is, as specified, standard proof of stake with an optional task market attached. If the authors intend useful work to be a prerequisite for consensus influence, the rule and its game-theoretic consequences should be specified; otherwise the claim that PoUI 'integrates security with real-world utility' should be weakened to a description of parallel mechanisms.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV-B] There is a duplicated word in the sentence 'Assuming Pval = 100 W = 0.1 kW for an Ethereum-like validator node (e.g., a standard PC) and and t = 1 hour'; 'and and' should be a single 'and'.
[Eq. (11)] The noise term uses w_{i+1}^{(c)} without defining the superscript, and beta = 1 makes the beta factor redundant; please clarify the intended parameterization and define all symbols.
[Section V-A] The 'informed analysis' that determines the target worker count w_tilde is never described; the simulation conclusions depend on this exogenous value, so the paper should at least discuss how it would be obtained in practice.
[Eq. (7) and Section IV-C] The phrase 'hardware overlap resulting in' is ambiguous: if a node both validates and performs useful work, the paper should justify why the energies add (0.1 + 0.5) rather than overlap or share components.
[Section III-C.2] The references [18] and [19] are named as frameworks for assessing output quality, but the paper does not explain how either framework provides an objective correctness criterion for arbitrary LLM outputs in an adversarial setting; please either specify the concrete verification protocol or remove the implication that these references close the security gap.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

PoUI's simulation and security argument contain circular steps: worker-count convergence is encoded in Eqs. 10-11, and invalid-output reputation presupposes the validator majority it is meant to police.

self definitional [Section V-B (Eqs. 10-11) and Section V-C (Result)]
"To model how workers respond to these reward adjustments, we define their participation dynamics as follow. The number of workers in the next interaction, denoted as wi+1, adapts to reward changes based on the utility function: ... The mechanism successfully maintains the worker count near the target, ensuring efficient job processing while avoiding over- or under-participation."

Eq. 10 increases reward when the worker count is below target and decreases it when above; Eq. 11 makes the next worker count an increasing function of the reward change (beta=1). The simulated convergence of w_i to the target w-tilde is therefore a built-in consequence of the two assumed equations, not an empirical finding. The paper labels this 'validate this mechanism' and takes it as evidence that PoUI 'regulates worker participation', but no independent data or fitted model is supplied. The demonstrated behavior is logically forced by the definitions.
self definitional [Section III-C, items 2-4 (Output Verification, Collusion Prevention, Reputation System)]
"AI-driven tasks in PoUI, such as text or image generation, lack a single correct answer, making the network vulnerable to malicious attacks. ... Multiple validators review subjective tasks, requiring majority agreement for approval to counter low-quality submissions. ... Malicious actions, like submitting fraudulent tasks or invalid outputs, lower scores, reducing rewards or access to tasks."

For the subjective tasks the paper itself describes as lacking a single correct answer, 'validity' is defined by validator majority approval. The reputation system then says 'invalid outputs' lower reputation, but an output is invalid only if the validator majority rejects it. A colluding majority that approves bad output has, by the protocol's own definition, produced a valid output, so the reputation penalty never triggers. Thus the anti-collusion mechanism presupposes the honest majority it is supposed to establish; the security claim reduces to an assumption rather than a derived result. The paper's own 'Future work will explore advanced attack detection' concession confirms the gap.

full rationale

The energy comparison (Section IV) is not circular: Esec for PoS is an assumed 100 W validator and Euse for PoUI is an external A100 datasheet/500 W system assumption, and the 0.6 kWh/node total is arithmetic from these stated inputs. The architecture description also has independent content. However, two load-bearing parts are circular. First, the simulation in Section V is a closed loop: Eq. 10 defines reward adjustment from worker-count error and Eq. 11 defines worker-count response from reward change, so the reported convergence to the target is entailed by the model rather than validated by it. Second, the security argument for subjective AI outputs defines acceptable outputs by validator majority and then uses 'invalid outputs' as a reputation penalty, leaving no independent predicate to detect a colluding majority; the paper itself defers attack detection to future work. These are partial circularities in supporting claims, not a complete collapse of the paper, so a score of 6 is appropriate. The single self-citation ([15]) is used only for the idea of collaborative computation and is not load-bearing. Non-circularity concerns about security assumptions would be correctness risks, but the definitional loop is the circularity flagged here.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative claims rest on hand-assumed hardware values and simulation parameters. The energy totals are arithmetic applied to these assumptions, and the simulation parameters determine the convergence behavior shown in Fig. 2. No new physical entities are postulated; the functional roles are organizational abstractions.

free parameters (8)

P_val (PoS validator power) = 100 W
Assumed in Eq. 6 for an Ethereum-like validator node; not measured.
P_act (PoUI worker active system power) = 500 W
Assumed in Section IV-C for an NVIDIA A100 server, cited to [21].
alpha (reward sensitivity) = 0.2
Hand-chosen in Section V-B simulation.
beta (worker reward sensitivity) = 1
Hand-chosen in Eq. 11 simulation.
gamma (noise range) = 0.05
Hand-chosen in Eq. 11 simulation.
Delta (adjustment threshold) = 0.05
Hand-chosen in Eq. 10 simulation.
w_tilde (target worker count) = 250 workers
Assumed in Section V-B for market stability.
w0 (initial worker count) = 100 workers
Assumed initial condition in Section V-B simulation.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption A PoS validator node consumes 100 W on average.
Used in Eq. 6 to compute E_PoS_sec = 0.1 kWh; no measurement is provided.
domain assumption A PoUI worker system draws 500 W during full utilization.
Used in Section IV-C to compute E_PoUI_use = 0.5 kWh, based on the A100 datasheet [21].
domain assumption Jobs can be normalized so that one job requires one worker per time step.
Stated in Section V-A to justify the normalized job model.
domain assumption Worker availability is unconstrained and workers respond to reward changes according to Eq. 11.
Adopted in Section V-B to model participation dynamics; no empirical support is given.
domain assumption Validators can reliably assess AI output quality using MCP or CodeAct with majority voting.
Asserted in Section III-C.2 and III-C.3; no evidence or formal verification is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Proof of Useful Intelligence (PoUI): Blockchain Consensus Beyond Energy Waste." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NFZ76E3J

@misc{pith2026250417539,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Proof of Useful Intelligence (PoUI): Blockchain Consensus Beyond Energy Waste},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NFZ76E3J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17539}
}

read the original abstract

Blockchain technology enables secure, transparent data management in decentralized systems, supporting applications from cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin to tokenizing real-world assets like property. Its scalability and sustainability hinge on consensus mechanisms balancing security and efficiency. Proof of Work (PoW), used by Bitcoin, ensures security through energy-intensive computations but demands significant resources. Proof of Stake (PoS), as in Ethereum post-Merge, selects validators based on staked cryptocurrency, offering energy efficiency but risking centralization from wealth concentration. With AI models straining computational resources, we propose Proof of Useful Intelligence (PoUI), a hybrid consensus mechanism. In PoUI, workers perform AI tasks like language processing or image analysis to earn coins, which are staked to secure the network, blending security with practical utility. Decentralized nodes--job posters, market coordinators, workers, and validators --collaborate via smart contracts to manage tasks and rewards.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17539 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Worker and reward trends over 200 time steps in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[18]

Introducing the Model Context Protocol,

Anthropic, “Introducing the Model Context Protocol,” nov 2024, accessed: 2025-04-03. [Online]. Available: https://www.anthropic.com/ news/model-context-protocol

work page 2024
[19]

Executable code actions elicit better LLM agents,

X. Wang, Y . Chen, L. Yuan, Y . Zhang, Y . Li, H. Peng, and H. Ji, “Executable code actions elicit better LLM agents,” in Forty-first In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning , 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,

S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” 2008

2008
[2]

On blockchain and its integration with IoT. challenges and opportunities,

A. Reyna, C. Martín, J. Chen, E. Soler, and M. Díaz, “On blockchain and its integration with IoT. challenges and opportunities,”Future generation computer systems, vol. 88, pp. 173–190, 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Tokenomics: Dynamic adoption and valuation,

L. W. Cong, Y . Li, and N. Wang, “Tokenomics: Dynamic adoption and valuation,” The Review of Financial Studies , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1105– 1155, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Cambridge bitcoin electricity consump- tion index,

C. C. for Alternative Finance, “Cambridge bitcoin electricity consump- tion index,” https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index, accessed: 30-Mar-2025

work page 2025
[5]

Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint,

K. J. O’Dwyer and D. Malone, “Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint,” in 25th IET Irish Signals & Systems Conference 2014 and 2014 China- Ireland International Conference on Information and Communications Technologies (ISSC 2014/CIICT 2014) . IET, 2014, pp. 280–285

work page 2014
[6]

Revisiting bitcoin’s carbon footprint,

A. de Vries, U. Gallersdörfer, L. Klaaßen, and C. Stoll, “Revisiting bitcoin’s carbon footprint,” Joule, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 495–502, March 2022, commentary

work page 2022

Show all 21 references

[7]

The carbon footprint of bitcoin,

C. Stoll, L. Klaaßen, and U. Gallersdörfer, “The carbon footprint of bitcoin,” Joule, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 1647–1661, jul 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.05.012

2019 doi
[8]

Incentives in ethereum’s hybrid casper protocol,

V . Buterin, D. Reijsbergen, S. Leonardos, and G. Piliouras, “Incentives in ethereum’s hybrid casper protocol,” International Journal of Network Management, vol. 30, no. 5, p. e2098, 2020

2020
[9]

From words to watts: Benchmarking the energy costs of large language model inference,

S. Samsi, D. Zhao, D. C. Hendrickson, A. J. Viana, B. Hilliard, W. W. Feng, T. Migimatsu, J. P. Gonzalez, J. Kepner, and V . Gadepally, “From words to watts: Benchmarking the energy costs of large language model inference,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.03003

2023 arXiv
[10]

A proof of useful work for artificial intelligence on the blockchain. arxiv 2020,

A. Lihu, J. Du, I. Barjaktarevic, P. Gerzanics, and M. Harvilla, “A proof of useful work for artificial intelligence on the blockchain. arxiv 2020,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09244

2020 arXiv
[11]

Proofware: Proof of useful work blockchain consensus protocol for decentralized applications,

Z. Dong, Y . C. Lee, and A. Y . Zomaya, “Proofware: Proof of useful work blockchain consensus protocol for decentralized applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.09276, 2019

1903 arXiv
[12]

Coin. ai: A proof-of-useful-work scheme for blockchain-based distributed deep learning,

A. Baldominos and Y . Saez, “Coin. ai: A proof-of-useful-work scheme for blockchain-based distributed deep learning,” Entropy, vol. 21, no. 8, p. 723, 2019

2019
[13]

Proof-of-useful-work: Blockchain mining by solving real-life optimization problems,

M. Todorovi ´c, L. Matijevi ´c, D. Ramljak, T. Davidovi ´c, D. Uroševi ´c, T. Jakši´c Krüger, and Ð. Jovanovi ´c, “Proof-of-useful-work: Blockchain mining by solving real-life optimization problems,” Symmetry, vol. 14, no. 9, p. 1831, 2022

2022
[14]

Cortex: The decentralized ai autonomous sys- tem,

Cortex Team, “Cortex: The decentralized ai autonomous sys- tem,” https://www.allcryptowhitepapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/ 05/Cortex-whitepaper.pdf, 2018, accessed: 2025-04-15

2018
[15]

LLM-Net: Democratizing LLMs-as-a-service through blockchain-based expert networks,

Z.-K. Chong, H. Ohsaki, and B. Ng, “LLM-Net: Democratizing LLMs-as-a-service through blockchain-based expert networks,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.07288

2025 arXiv
[16]

Blockchain for deep learning: review and open challenges,

M. Shafay, R. W. Ahmad, K. Salah, I. Yaqoob, R. Jayaraman, and M. Omar, “Blockchain for deep learning: review and open challenges,” Cluster Computing , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 197–221, 2022, accessed via PMC. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-022-03582-7

2022 doi
[17]

Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol,

A. Kiayias, A. Russell, B. David, and R. Oliynykov, “Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol,” in Annual interna- tional cryptology conference . Springer, 2017, pp. 357–388

2017
[20]

Bitmain shop,

Bitmain, “Bitmain shop,” https://shop.bitmain.com/, accessed: 21-Mar- 2025. 8

2025
[21]

NVIDIA A100 Tensor Core GPU Datasheet,

NVIDIA Corporation, “NVIDIA A100 Tensor Core GPU Datasheet,” https://www.nvidia.com/content/dam/en-zz/Solutions/Data-Center/a100/ pdf/nvidia-a100-datasheet-nvidia-us-2188504-web.pdf, 2020, accessed: 3-Apr-2025

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [18]

Introducing the Model Context Protocol,

Anthropic, “Introducing the Model Context Protocol,” nov 2024, accessed: 2025-04-03. [Online]. Available: https://www.anthropic.com/ news/model-context-protocol

work page 2024

[2] [19]

Executable code actions elicit better LLM agents,

X. Wang, Y . Chen, L. Yuan, Y . Zhang, Y . Li, H. Peng, and H. Ji, “Executable code actions elicit better LLM agents,” in Forty-first In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning , 2024

work page 2024

[3] [1]

Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,

S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” 2008

2008

[4] [2]

On blockchain and its integration with IoT. challenges and opportunities,

A. Reyna, C. Martín, J. Chen, E. Soler, and M. Díaz, “On blockchain and its integration with IoT. challenges and opportunities,”Future generation computer systems, vol. 88, pp. 173–190, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [3]

Tokenomics: Dynamic adoption and valuation,

L. W. Cong, Y . Li, and N. Wang, “Tokenomics: Dynamic adoption and valuation,” The Review of Financial Studies , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1105– 1155, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [4]

Cambridge bitcoin electricity consump- tion index,

C. C. for Alternative Finance, “Cambridge bitcoin electricity consump- tion index,” https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index, accessed: 30-Mar-2025

work page 2025

[7] [5]

Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint,

K. J. O’Dwyer and D. Malone, “Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint,” in 25th IET Irish Signals & Systems Conference 2014 and 2014 China- Ireland International Conference on Information and Communications Technologies (ISSC 2014/CIICT 2014) . IET, 2014, pp. 280–285

work page 2014

[8] [6]

Revisiting bitcoin’s carbon footprint,

A. de Vries, U. Gallersdörfer, L. Klaaßen, and C. Stoll, “Revisiting bitcoin’s carbon footprint,” Joule, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 495–502, March 2022, commentary

work page 2022