All I was trying to do was to figure out if you were unable to comprehend IBLT's impacts on block size, or whether you were deliberately ignoring them because they (probably completely) nullify the argument you were trying to make and figured your target audience would be ignorant of them.
Not that it matters much...both possibilities suck for you.
Wrong on all counts.
You'd know that if you'd bother to read.
You're just setting yourself up to look even more ridiculous.
The profligate nature of your writing and speaking is eclipsed only by the content-less nature of both. I swear to Christ I've never gotten so little out of a one hour podcast as I did with that thing I listened to the other day. I'm not going to track down all your spam so pop up a link if you have one.
Speaking of the
podcast (with some fake accent guy who spent the last 10 minutes of his time doing jl777 a solid), what was really funny was that even with 40 minutes or so to burn you still deferred on trying to explain the OT thing because, supposedly, it was to complicated or some such. Signing an XML is complicated? Or tracking some sigs with a centralized server system? Ya, OK. Occam's razor suggests that you didn't want to try to describe it because it is lame and mostly useless.
I'm going to give you guys a little help understanding what is missing. OK, so I make a 'contract' and break it. What are you going to do? Kick me out of your Ayn Rand fun-fort? You need some sort of enforcement. Fiat has it because they have a court system. Bitcoin has a proof-of-work. As far as I can see, OT has bunkus unless you somehow major visibility and I don't see that happening. Maybe you could attach to someone with a user tracking and validation charger (e.g., CoinValidation) but I suspect they'll tell you to piss up a rope and just role their own instead of working with you. You might offer your solution to Blockstream to try out for their federated kludge. A proof-of-concept which does something useful probably wouldn't hurt OT any.