This would be quite a nonstandard approach in mathematics, and I would guess in most of academia. Could you show examples of people taking this approach and how it has been received?

@Tommi the person asking this question doesn't seem to care about what academia thinks and frankly they shouldn't (I definitely don't, its mostly a cesspool). We want to first guarantee proper credit attribution of the idea in order to block possible vultures (i.e. academics) seizing it from a student, then we can proceed with whatever is the academic way.

I offered a comment that suggested an improvement; since the approach you offer is not standard, it is doubtul if it works and prior evidence of it working would have improved the answer. You seem unwilling to do the improvement, so I downvoted your answer as not based on personal experience or other established methods.

It seems to me you have missed the point of the question. It's not about ways to publish a finding, it's about how to ensure proper attribution. A simple solution is to be the first to publicly disclose the finding in an immutable, secure way that cannot be removed by higher powers, i.e. a blockchain. A proper paper and whatever will obviously be required later, but we're talking about guaranteeing authorship here nothing more.

I invite you again to provide examples of this having worked in the past. To me this feels like shooting a fly with a cannon; the risk of having results stolen is small and the approach quite heavy.

"Having worked in the past" you mean regarding what? That someone who got his attribution credit stolen was able to remediate the situation because they had secretly published their finding before the first public release? I don't know of any such case but it's like 1+1=2. If you can prove that, before anyone else, you published a proof, then you are its creator in the eyes of the community. Isn't that how it works? My blockchain approach allows you to do just that. Blockchain is not magic its a tool for such scenarios.

You suggest publishing the proof and making it immutable. The former ist a standard way of establishing priority (see other questions on this site), but (as the other answers indicate) perhaps not the right approach for the first attempt of a proof that most likely still needs a lot of work. The latter is very unusual, cumbersome, and unnecessary. If you post something to a public repository (e.g. arXiv), you have claimed authorship and you have a timestamp. Manipulation of published material by third parties to "steal" authorship is completely unheard of; the notion is, frankly, paranoid.

But that's the whole point of the question. Just because you find it paranoid, others don't. They won't publish a whole paper in the blockchain and point their peers there, are you crazy? They will simply publish the formula if possible or a hash of the proof or something. As I said, a paper-like publication will be sent to whatever party for review following standard procedure. If and when they try to steal credit, a proof of existence, timestamped and all will be there to block them. It's that simple. Why can't academics think outside the box...

A use as close to this one as you can find where blockchain was used would strengthen the answer. So: something mathematical; if not available, something in an academic context; if not available, maybe something related to patens or technology or copyright. Up to you to find the closest relevant example if you want to persuade people of your approach, and up to you to argue it that the example is relevant to the scenario at hand.

My proposal is essentially the same as releasing a paper on arXiv but you don't need to write a whole paper just the proof, you don't need approval or a "researcher account" and your publication can't be taken down for any reason. Simple as that. And this is what the OP was looking for.

@Tommi: this feels like shooting a fly with a cannon --- This was my impression also (but not the quip). In reality the real problem is getting anyone to even care or to notice what you've done. Worrying about someone stealing your idea, at least in mathematics, is just not a realistic concern except in extremely unusual situations, and anyone in such a situation would not be in the OP's position. For example, it's possible someone who just learned chess, with no record of tournament play, might discover an entirely unknown but novel opening strategy. But I would bet very heavily against it.

@Konstantine, I don't think I'm crazy, thanks for your concern. But I'm aware that's exactly what crazy would people say.

@DaveLRenfro Worrying about someone stealing your idea, at least in mathematics, is just not a realistic concern ... except that is exactly the concern that the OP has expressed and asked for a solution to.

Dismissing the actual question asked as absurd and instead deciding to answer the question that you think the OP should have asked is incredibly rude, unhelpful, and depressingly common across all of the StackExchange sites :(

I don't understand all the downvotes on this answer. It's not a conventional answer, and it may seem out of place in the context of our personal experiences of academia, but it is a perfectly valid answer to the question as asked. The fact that the answer suggests something unconventional is not a reason to downvote it to oblivion. Though it may not have precedent in practice, it is self-evident that it would address the issue of establishing authorship with a timestamp (which is the basis of the technology).

I think this suggestion is fine. If the OP wants to claim priority on the proof, this is one way to do it. Of course, the professional experience of many is that this is completely unnecessary, which I agree with. But I don't see the problem with trying this approach and learning for yourself that it is unnecessary. There is no harm in this approach (esp. if your encrypt the proof) if your claim is never challenged, which is exactly what most expect to happen. (as a corollary, it is also irrelevant whether a similar approach has been successfully applied before)

The serious problem with this attempted solution is that if an idea of an unknown, uncredentialed person were indeed stolen in this way, by an established person, and published as their own... it would be very hard for the unknown person to even get anyone to pay attention to their "proof" of theft, especially if that proof were unconventional. And it's not that there are "courts" where these things are adjudicated. The failure of this approach is similar to attempting to insist that retailers accept crypto-currency... how?

@paulgarrett “it would be very hard for the unknown person to even get anyone to pay attention to their proof of theft” Not at all. OP can simply reveal the original document whose hash was stored on the blockchain. Anyone can hash it and see the hash agrees with the published one.

@user76284, but what if no one cares to compute the hash, etc. That is, what if no one bothers to pay attention to the "proof"? There is no real device to compel anyone to do so. There is no adjudicating body to compel it, nor to render judgement.

@paulgarrett Of course you can't compel someone to hash something. But it's very easy for anyone (including any adjudicating body, journal, institution, journalist, faculty member, etc.) to do. I don't think compulsion is necessary for a solution to the OP's question.

@Brondahl OP is new to academia. If they ask a question whose premise is flawed, it's correct to point them to the right direction. It is not rude and it is more than helpful. While this answer provides a solution to the question asked, it fails to teach to OP the correct ways to go about the matter in the world of academia. (Of course this is an opinion you might disagree with, but it's nevertheless a valid one)