Two point of views: Server offering person Alice: If I want to use the service, I want to use the service, not get cryptocoin shares. And I usually want stuff

Two point of views: Server offering person Alice: If I want to use the service, I want to use the service, not get cryptocoin shares. And I usually want stuff on the internet for free. Server or service using person Bob: If I want to make money by hosting, I need someone to pay for my hosting-mined coins. I don't understand as to who in this overview is willing to pay for a place on the blockchain with fiat currency? Someone needs to pay Alice for the efforts she has put into hosting, but who transfers something worth real money to here? Even the author stated that he wants to use a blockchain for user identification, not monetary incentive. But perhaps he means identification is what is granted to you, no money involved. But that can't be it either: So you can host a server, to gain the right to use the server? No, that is the status quo. Lets take a look what happens if you do not run your own server: So you host a more or less public server for others as the scenario proposed here. A client connects, and sends that that shall be stored in a blockchain (i.e. append only, publicly distributed database) to upload [1] and later confirm their identity. When not running the server, who says that the server is not malicious and uses a different identity for the federated network than it displays to the client that connected to it? [1] Something like the the Web of Trust exists between existing servers, or the server will have to spend a resource like having coins or a history of already signed up users to gain the right to add user identities to the blockchain? The Proof of Stake/Work paragraph above probably now again applies for true "trustless" systems, that require full client (i.e. technically server node) equals user identity.