Proof Of Work Form: Fill & Download for Free

Easy.First, he registered to vote. Depending upon where he lives and his residence, that involved showing some form of residence and proof of identity.Second, he either requested an absentee ballot. Or he showed up and voted in person.And that’s how it works.

As we’ve observed several times on Quora, Andrew Wiles’ proof isn’t a proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. Wiles and Taylor’s proof is a proof of the Modularity Theorem[1] in the semistable case.I’m pointing this out because, even if this proof can be simplified, it won’t help you much in having a simple proof of FLT, since you’d still need to explain why the Modularity Theorem implies FLT. That work is also very substantial and very deep, and it’s not actually Wiles’. This was proven by Ribet, utilizing a lot of previous, deep results by others.There are several possible questions here:Is there a simple proof of FLT? We don’t know, but if I had to guess, the answer is No. There isn’t any reason to expect an elementary proof of this theorem (and no, Fermat didn’t have one).Is there a simpler proof of FLT, simpler than the one presented by combining the work of Ribet and Wiles? We don’t know either, but my previous comments highlight that simplifying Wiles’ papers alone isn’t sufficient.Is there a simpler proof of the full Modularity Theorem, simpler than the one by Breuil-Conrad-Diamond-Taylor, building on the work of Wiles-Taylor? We don’t know either, but I would submit that this is A) A much, much more important question, and B) probably still unlikely, but a lot more likely than a simple proof of FLT. We are still learning a lot about elliptic curves and modular forms, and perhaps one day we will manage to introduce a language, theories and tools that would make the thing accessible to grad students.Footnotes[1] Modularity theorem - Wikipedia

Traditional proof of work has its advantages but it's not scalable and it is financially taxing and hard on the environment to run the network.ScalibilityTo make a transaction a Proof of Work Blockchain must run an algorithm that proves work was done. “Work” by definition takes time and mining slows down the throughput of a network. Proof of Work is fine if waiting a few hours or even a few days is not a problem; for instance buying a house, a car, or other large purchases. But who wants to wait hours to pay for a cup of coffee or Triple A batteries? The more people use a proof of Work network the more bogged down the network will get. The more bogged down the network becomes the less people will want to use it. This will prevent the ultimate goal of cryptocurrency: mass adoption.Financially Taxing and Environmental ProblemsRunning a mining operation is expensive. You must maintain computers that are capable of mining the network and keep them powered at all times. Buying the computers, the warehouse, the computer technicians and the electricity is more expensive in the long run than merely buying the coins and staking them.The creation of computers and electricity also taxes the environment and leads to mining valuable resources and destruction of beautiful land. Proof of work does not have the same impact on the environment and thus makes cryptocurrency more sustainable.ConclusionI don't think Proof of Work will go away because it does have some advantages over Proof of Stake (it seems to be more secure and decentralized if the network is big enough). However, I do think Proof of Stake will become the most common form of blockchain in the future. I also think when Ethereum becomes Proof of Stake it will breath new life into Ether Classic and give it a new niche as a Proof of Work Smart Contract platform. Also look into these other high quality Prood of Stake Projects: Tezos, Divi Project, and EOS.