Proof of Individual Validation (PoIV) a new proof of work and distribution scheme uPoW micro

After talking to Johan Nygren @resilience_me on twitter, and reading his papers on Proof of Vote and an identity validation system Pseudonym Pairs I figured we can use this idea as a micro proof of work.

What is a micro proof of work (uPoW)?

Micro proof of work is a small proof of work that can give many individuals each newly minted cryptocurrency, not just from a centralized mining challenge.  Why is micro proof of work needed?  Because there is no real way for individual miners to ever get cryptocurrency in traditional Proof of Work unless they join a centralized mining pool (which is itself a non-ideal uPoW) or buy the cryptocurrency from the big players who win blocks.  Micro proof of work is often used as a layer on-top of  a traditional proof of work (or other proof) Nakamoto consensus.  This is because without getting this data onto a centralized blockchain, other people wouldn't know whether you really have coins or not.

As an aside: The Nakamoto consensus could ideally be the Proof of Vote system where each vote is a person validated by by this PoIV system.  The Proof of Vote (PoV) system could say "If you have a 90% validation confirmation and have been validated 100 times or more and have been validated in the last blocktime (say 10 minutes) then you can vote (mine) on the block and have a chance of winning it."

So in micro proof of work, everyone can mint their own currency.

Johan's idea: The idea is to use a random pairing of two nodes/people on the network.  They communicate and decide if each-other are humans.  This is the validation.

In my implementation only one of them is tasked as the validator, the other person being validated is the subject.  This is because if both of them are validators, they could negotiate "I will validate you if you validate me, deal?".  If only one of them is validating no reciprocal agreement can be made. The subject has to prove to the validator they are human.  This can be any way they decide, perhaps just having a convo which was Johan's idea, or the validator can ask specific questions.  Johan also provided that the pair could be broken by either one.  Lets say this can be done after 1 minute (just so they aren't spamming for validators they are colluding with) but not after the 2 minute mark (so after say 4 minutes they can't threaten to end the pair unless you promise to validate me) and lets say the validation period is 5 minutes (Johan's idea was 20 mins).  Say the validator starts asking personal questions, the subject can break the pairing and be randomly paired with another validator.

Once the validator has completed his work, he determines whether the person was human or not.  If he determines the person was human, cryptocurrency is created out of thin air and given to the Subject.  If the validator determines they are not human, coins are not made.  As a thank you for the validation work (if the subject didn't break the pairing, and therefore vote the validator was bad), the validator can now be the subject of validation himself and have the chance to earn his own cryptocurrency if he is validated successfully.  Another option to prevent collusion is to randomly assign a person as subject or validator. However in this case if someone gets assigned validator they may want to just end pair so they can have a chance to be a subject without waiting the 5 minutes.  So completing the challenge as Validator in order to become a Subject in future round may be needed.

The validator has reason to not want to determine the person is real.  If he determines the person is real, then the currency will inflate and everyone's currency is worth less.  So it is in the best interest of the validator to err on the side of not granting the validation and therefore coins.  However the validator himself will likely not feel the inflation himself, so if the person really is real and they had a good convo, the validator would likely want to reward the subject for their work by validating them.

Each validation can also act as a "feedback" on the truthfulness of the person.  When doing business with someone, you can see they were validated say 500 times and only denied 3 times, which means to you that you can trust this person.  However the validation process itself would be blind so you can't know who you are talking to or their reputation so you can have an unbiased judgement.  You only see the person's rating when you are buying or selling from them.

That is basically it.  This idea can be used with or without additional coin creation or validation mechanisms.  It would likely sit as a uPoW layer atop a traditional Proof of Work or other large scale consensus mechanism in order for everyone to know who has what coins.


Emulsified or Liposomal Nano Hydroxyapatite Peroxide nHApPe (HAPPEN)

HAPPEN (Hydroxyapatite peroxide emulsified nano-particles) is a form of biomimetic emulsified nano hydroxyapatite peroxide.  Preferably it would be peroxidized but does not need to be to fit with this invention, and could be called HAPEN if it is not peroxidized.

What it is, is a emulsified remineralizing ingredient and both the emulsification and nano size of the remineralizing particles (which is supercharged with peroxidation) improve the ability of the natural remineralization process.  We know that nano hydroxyapatite in the saliva are emulsified with phospholipids similar to lecithin which helps the delivery of the nano particles to the tooth surface (this can also be used for any other use and not just in dentifrices and mouthwash and oral gels and gums and foods etc.)

Here is an example process of how it can be made.  This example is in a dry form but can also be a wet form.

1. Obtain or make nano hydroxyapatite powder.

2. Peroxidize the powder by adding 12.5% food grade hydrogen peroxide to make a paste or liquid.  Should take a lot of stirring to get the nano powder to become saturated and uniform and will tend to want to make a film and not get saturated (this difficulty confirms indeed the powder has nano structure).

3.  Let powder sit in peroxide for several hours or until it ceases producing new foam.

4.  Dry by placing a fan over it.

5.  Grind to a fine fluffy powder.

6. Add this plus other ingredients like protiens or amino acids, emulsifiers like lecithin, and any other additives like vitamin, minerals, oils, essential oils, etc. (liquid lecithin can be dissolved in essential oils)

7.  Grind this combination in a commercial power herb grinder.  Add anticaking agent like tricalcium phosphate or calcium carbonate as needed.

8.  This is your HAPPEN mix.  Add this to whatever product you desire or use straight.

Lets make Remineralization HAPPEN!


New Dielectric materials Barium Copper Titanate, Calcium Silver Titanate

We know Barium Titanate, and lesser Strontium titanate are great dielectrics.  Well Calcium Titanate also works as well, but not as good.

Someone had the bright idea to add copper to calcium titanate and made by far the best dielectric known.  Why?  Possibly because the copper is a source of electrons to move around to polarize the particles in the dielectric allowing for extreme capacity.  Also the copper could act as an electronegative element, allowing the compound to polarize better.  Perhaps a difference in electronegativity of closely packed (non-conductive, oxide containing) elements can help with polarizability.

So here are some new ones that will be even better than calcium copper titanate

Barium Silver Titanate

Barium Copper Titanate

Strontium Copper Titanate

Calcium Silver Titanate

Magnesium Silver Titanate

Barium Gold Titanate

Barium Silver Gold Titanate

Barium Gold Tungstate - could be the best, good electronegativity separations and large atoms.

Barium Gold Molybdenate

Barium Graphene Tungstate - Graphene is more electronegative than gold and might allow electron movement even better.  Graphene oxide should be used to prevent conduction and reduction of bandgap too much.

Barium Graphene Titanate - Higher bandgap materials may be needed and titanate has bandgap around 3.5 eV as opposed to tungstates 2.6 eVCalcium copper titanate dielectric of 3.9 eV and highest dielectric constant. I'm guessing that there may be a "perfect bandgap" of perhaps 4 eV for maximum dielectric constant.  Things like copper oxide or graphene oxide or silver oxide or gold oxide etc. can potentially lower high bandgap materials like calcium titanate materials into the perfect range.

Basically any alkaline earth metal, a electron rich metal, and titanate.

4TiO2 + CaCO3 + 3CuO → CaCu3Ti4O12 + CO2

 or more generally

4TiO2 + Alkaline earth Carbonate + 3(transition metal Oxide) → (alk.)(trans.)3Ti4O12 + CO2

Any of thes new compounds should be able to be produced under 2000c, likely around 1000-1500c.

So aaccording to this chart Alkaline metals have low electronegativity so are more likely to give up electrons.  Elements like copper, silver, gold, and the like have high electronegativity so would want to pull electrons.  Some other good candidates for the transitional metal oxides could be Cobalt, Ruthenium, Rhenium, Palladium, Rhenium, Osmium, Iridium, Platinum, and of course Gold may be the best.  Perhaps a combination of Silver and Gold could be even better combining the electronegativity of Gold with the conductivity of Silver.  Perhaps having "jumps" in the electronegativities of the elements allows for high polarizability 1->1.5->1.9 in the case of calcium->titanium->copper.   Also perhaps the smaller size of calcium is needed since the copper throws off the crystal structure alignment which allowed for the bigger barium atoms to fit within.

Crystal structures:


Blue are Copper, Teal are oxygen, and Red are Calcium.  Yellow blocks are titanates.


Blue shapes are titanates, orange circle is barium

Calcium Copper Titanate Slideshow

Conductive fillers improve dielectric constant to insulators up to a point

calcium and strontium titanate bandgap around 3, so lower than calcium copper titanate