TorbellinoVPN: connect now to Europe's southernmost Ethereum full node
April 5 2026
We are pleased to announce that we have successfully deployed our first Ethereum full node, now also available via our Virtual Private Network with an additional layer of industry-standard, secure, encrypted communications.
This is part of our efforts to participate and contribute to the Ethereum initiative and, more generally, to a more secure, resilient and connected Internet and world. The data that is publicly available and that we have collected directly from the Ethereum public mainnet agree that Spain and, in particular, the south of Spain, is relatively underdeveloped in this universe (compared to other similar regions).
Furthermore, it is a well-known, global, continuous challenge to keep Ethereum and the Internet secure and decentralized at the infrastructural level. This is our contribution from a humble position with limited resources. But there are many regions that are underrepresented or completely disconnected. Apart from the strictly technical challenge there are many other factors, from the energetic to the economical or environmental.
The encrypted communications over VPN add a layer of security with additional benefits well-suited for an enterprise service. We hope that our clients will appreciate this. We are looking to integrate with their operations and to maintain and improve this service progressively. In fact, VPN technology will be used to serve other customized services beyond standard Ethereum or related to other systems or applications.
You can contact us if you want to join or if you just want more details about the service.
How Proof of Work (Bitcoin) is Wrong
April 1 2026
(This is a blog post transcribing a previously published video (25th of Sept. of 2025, see the companies' socials))
1. What is Proof of Work?
So what is proof of work? Here we are considering it in the context of Bitcoin basically because of the relevance of Bitcoin. Proof of Work is a small but nevertheless important part of the consensus mechanism of the Bitcoin protocol. Basically, miners compete to solve cryptographic puzzles, and the first to succeed earns the right to add a block. The purpose is to make altering the blockchain costly, since it would require redoing all of this so-called “work.”
The question here is: what exactly is meant by “work” in this context? Why use this word and not others? The word also invites a discussion of the foundations of Bitcoin. This discussion is relevant because of the relevance of Bitcoin and the observed public discourse (scientific institutions, technological centers, companies, financial institutions, governments, etc.).
2. Possible Interpretations
There are basically two possible interpretations. These are the two most straightforward.
There is the physical interpretation of work.
There is the economics/production/labor interpretation of work.
3. Proof of Work in the Physical Interpretation
First, I am not a physicist, but the details are not important here.
In physics, work has been defined, and the argument is that since Bitcoin mining involves running computations on digital electronic computers, then this qualifies as work because it consumes (electrical) energy. But this interpretation has issues.
Even in physics, the concept of energy is not universally defined. There is no single, general theory of energy (abstract, general, without adjectives). Instead, energy appears in different forms—kinetic, potential, thermal, chemical—unified mainly through conservation laws. So even if we accept the reduction of work to energy, the term energy is not completely defined in physical terms.
In other words, given that the concept of energy is already problematic, if we put bitcoin on top of that, so to speak, we get greater confusion. Maybe an acceptable naming would be Proof of Electrical or Electromagnetic Energy. But even this has some challenges I will talk about in a couple of minutes.
4. Proof of Work in the Production/Labor Interpretation
Another possibility is to interpret “work” in the economic or production or labor sense of the word. Mining certainly involves costs: producing hardware, producing electricity, and employing people to maintain operations.
But here, too, the connection is not straightforward. Energy costs, for example, vary greatly depending on location, infrastructure, and regulation. If Proof of Work is meant to prove that energy was spent, the variation in how energy is priced and sourced makes the “proof” highly contingent, and more generally the variation of economic conditions. In other words, if the concept of energy interpreted in the physics domain is problematic, the concept of energy understood as a sector of the economy or as some economical concept is even worse (in the scientific sense). The content of the proof is not really clear, the concept is not clearly defined.
5. Possible Solutions
What are some possible solutions? Some have already tried.
First idea that may come to mind is renaming it. I think there is nothing really wrong with Bitcoin in itself or with the implementation of Proof of Work. The problem is the naming is misleading. We could rename Proof of Work to Proof of Computation. After all, what miners actually do is compute hashes repeatedly until a valid one is found. This is a clearly defined process, and the proof is that the computation has been carried out.
However, even this framing has complications. Computation is not absolute; it depends for instance on computer architecture (at the outset, we cannot ignore this understanding of computing). The same puzzle is approached differently by CPUs, GPUs, and ASICs, each with different levels of efficiency. Basically, variations of the architecture of a computer and further specifications we can consider. A task that is computationally costly for one architecture may be trivial for another. This means that even “Proof of Computation” is not a universally defined concept, in this interpretation (where we consider computer in its most general understanding). This also has to do with the issue of Proof of Electrical Energy, and I will come back again to Proof of Computation in a minute.
6. Solution
A more accurate naming is Proof of Hash, or more precisely, Proof of Signed Hash. This is not pretentious. What miners actually prove is that they have produced a hash that meets the difficulty target, and that it is cryptographically linked to a block and their signature. Both hashing and signing are mathematically well-defined functions. There is no ambiguity here.
Beyond this, further labels such as Proof of Work, Proof of Computation, or Proof of Energy are a stretch if we want to be rigorous. Work and Energy are specifically problematic because of the meanings and connotations.
7. Coda: Proof of Stake
It is useful to contrast this with Proof of Stake. The terminology is more consistent. Proof of Stake literally demonstrates that validators have locked or “staked” tokens. In this case, the name matches the mechanism, and the description is more scientifically accurate. Definitely less inaccurate.
In particular, we can look at Ethereum’s Proof of Stake, the most popular blockchain implementing Proof of Stake. From a computational standpoint, Ethereum is more complex and allows more complex verification processes (which can be specified computationally). Bitcoin’s mechanism, by contrast, is relatively simple: it amounts to proving that a hash with certain properties exists. In fact, the Ethereum Virtual Machine is a Turing complete machine (one of the main proposals in the origin of Ethereum) and this potentially has to do with the verification processes and the definition of Proof of Stake. So Bitcoin’s while consensus is more simple (the machine that processes Bitcoin transactions inside the Bitcoin blockchain is not Turing complete) and narrowly focused on hash computation, Ethereum’s protocol allows a broader set of computational proofs as part of its consensus and execution layers.
8. Conclusion
So in conclusion, how is Proof of Work wrong? It is a terminological problem, that can lead to misleading interpretations in the context of Bitcoin and the more general context of the global economy and commentary by all sorts of organizations (scientific, technological, companies in general, governments, financial, etc.). Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism is technically effective, but the way it is described is misleading. Proof of Work is neither work in the physical sense nor in the economic sense. For scientific integrity, it would be more precise to change the name, maybe call this Proof of Signed Hash.
Finally, this critique is not a claim that Bitcoin cannot serve as a digital coin or payment system. It is only an attempt to clarify misconceptions about its foundation, so that discussions of its role can be based on a more accurate understanding.
Arguments why Europe is the best candidate place to build AI
August 30 2025
1. AI has not been built
First, before even considering this matter, we need the following claim: Artificial Intelligence has not been built. Here AI understood as a truly autonomous system. Basically, the prelude is that we have seen ``AI models'' deployed but none are truly autonomous. I will indirectly argue for this claim in the following.
2. Comparative arguments
Also, before presenting the actual arguments, we need to see this is a comparative matter. ``Europe is the best candidate place to build AI'' compared to something. Basically, compared to the US and China since this is the current situation.
3. The raw computing capacity argument
A metric very often mentioned when talking about AI is the raw computing capacity available. US and China are leading when it comes to raw computing capacity, a valid argument often used against Europe. However, there is an argument that raw computing capacity is not that relevant, and will progressively be less relevant in this context, since the costs will go down and most importantly, since ultimately the hardest task is at the software level (system design).
4. The scientific argument
This argument basically goes like this: ultimately AI is a scientific endeavour and Europe is best positioned at the scientific level. The engineering, which is strictly necessary nevertheless, should lead to some scientific result. In the long run, Europe will come out ahead because it will catch up at the engineering level and it will outperform at the scientific level.
This is a topic I have covered before (youtube channel). Also, see the following argument.
5. The historical (scientific) argument
This argument complements the previous one. Historically, Europe has been the most important region at science. From the scientific revolutions at the origins of modernity even to the troublesome 20th century, Europe has been the center of scientific production.
6. The talent argument
It is often mentioned that most prominent engineers and scientists in the field are from the US and China (and work for US and China based companies). This may be true at some level (I have not formally checked the statistics). However, it can very well just be that they have been able to mobilize better the existing talent towards this goal for now (at some level). It does not mean that the talent is not there.
Secondary arguments here talk about better economic conditions (e.g. better salaries or better economies of scale), which go to strengthen the main argument.
So the argument basically goes like this: there is talent in Europe, it is just that conditions need to change (and these conditions can change).
7. The still early argument
AI has not been built. We are still in the process of building it. In fact, we are early in the process. For now, we have seen some ``AI models'' deployed, that are iterated every year and measured against some benchmarks (a formidable task in and of itself), but there is still a lot of work to be done to get to a truly autonomous system. Even if Europe is behind for now we are still early in the race.
8. The anarchist argument
This argument is probably the most subtle and difficult to see clearly.
Some have argued very strongly in favor of making the AI matter a political matter. Arguments vary: AI for the common cause of the state, AI needs to be controlled by preexisting, accepted society standards and procedures, AI favors from state fostering it and state sponsored programs, \ldots At some level this seems reasonable. For example, we can clearly see a connection with argument 6 and secondary arguments. However, ultimately a political organization is defined by its (political) goals and, regarding technology, a political organization has to and strives to subordinate technology to achieve its own goals. Therefore, in the long run it is not so obvious how these balances of power will come to a resolution.
This argument basically goes along the lines: ultimately there is an implicit anarchist thesis in the concept of AI and Europe is better positioned in this regard.
Anyways, it begs the question: who is really committed to this endeavour?
Torbellino Tech