not only is this not a proof, but also implicitly sweeps many issues with the implementation of the current system under-the-rug, which is the more insidious part of this argument.<p>> Proof that Proof-of-Work is the only solution to Byzantine Generals' problem<p>this is an argument for PoW's validity as a solution, for starters. in no way is this a proof, let alone one of uniqueness.<p>> In case of Bitcoin mining farms, such an alternative would require a very expensive and complex production chain, requring either outcompeting other firms that use chip foundries or building single use datacenters in the most cost-effective locations on the plane<p>that is exactly what we have right now! SHA256 has become so optimised in these chips that the whole issue of "consensus" has been almost diluted to "consensus between a <i>very</i> small number of people".<p>it might appear as though i'm identifying a 51% attack, and whilst that is entirely un-addressed in this "proof", that's not what i mean.<p>bitcoin was created to decentralise money. there are so few actors in the mining business now as to negate the benefit of requiring trust in a small number of centralised entities. which, by the way, happen to be well-known, non-anonymous, and culpable when mistakes are made/crimes are committed.<p>sure, the majority of the resources must be used to create a "message", but it certainly does not necessarily represent the consensus.<p>bitcoin, in its current implementation, has failed. that largely stems from the fact that SHA256 PoW as a means of proof, has failed.