As I promised, I’m publishing the preliminary paper on how to apply MAVE-3 to P2P cryptocurrency.
The paper would be a lot more readable if it didn't constantly make factually incorrect statements about Bitcoin, it makes it somewhat irritating to read.
Some examples, (though there are a great many— I think, in fact, the majority of the comments about the bitcoin system are arguably incorrect or misleading— including things as simple and factual as transaction sizes)
One of the key differences between Bitcoin and MAVEPAY is that Bitcoin has no "free rides". Every transaction can (and ussualy must) pay a fee.
This is incorrect, and you could have verified in just a couple minutes that an overwhelming super-majority of transactions pay _no fee at all_ right now.
Though fees are one mechanism bitcoin uses for anti-dos— resulting in a _reusable proof of work_ system which is arguably superior to any one-shot POW system, at least so long as mining is creating substantial amounts of coin, Bitcoin also uses coin-immobility-time as an anti-dos mechanism— and the effectiveness of this is why most txn don't carry fees.
One of the problems with Bitcoin is that, in order to prevent transactions of being broadcast ad-infinitum, each client maintains a hash table of cryptographic hashes of each transaction ever seen and avoids reprocessing a transaction previously processed by checking every transaction against this table. This protocol requires the eternal storage of transaction hashes.
I'm not even sure how you're making this error. It simply isn't true. Transactions must spend a previously existing transaction, and they exhaust it in the process thus making duplicates of that transaction invalid. Nodes do remember transactions they've already forwarded to peers to avoid excessive rapid retransmission, but there is no protocol requirement of this and the storage is purely in memory not eternal.
Perhaps it would be better in the future to describe your system without constant incorrect references to the Bitcoin system.
[I don't mean to be entirely negative— the PoW-Chain-staggered-commitments as signatures is quite clever. I'm not convinced as to it's use in currency systems, especially since ecdsa signatures (esp with the proper curve selected and bulk validation) are not that much slower, nor are lamport signatures that much bigger... but it's still a neat idea]