Quote from: TheRealSteve on June 13, 2015, 11:05:38 PM

Yeah, it's a lot of words. A lot. Of. Words. But not much substance.

Yeah, that's about right.

Also,

Quote from: camsarria on June 13, 2015, 10:53:01 PM

Currently the operation of the Blockchain is closely tied to Bitcoin

...ya think?

Quote from: camsarria on June 13, 2015, 10:53:01 PM

when it could run the Internet-of-Things authentication and communication for billions of devices, when it could run secure and vendor-independent Autonomous Drive authentication and communication for billions of transportation devices between vehicles-to-vehicles and vehicles-to-infrastructures? And so much more.

Hey, jackass, stop glutting my financial transaction record book with your SMS transaction services. Go get your own blockchain and stop spamming ours.

Quote from: camsarria on June 13, 2015, 10:53:01 PM

We can administer up to 3 EH from a single console if desired

Yes, I will gladly pay you to build an infrastructure readily capable of a 90% attack because it adds so much security to the blockchain. I think you miss the point of "decentralization". Sounds to me like they're wadding up all their hardware into a few locations they control and doling out subscriptions (I could be wrong but that's the impression I get from their very vague discussion) which is one step shy of the definition of "centralized" - that step being the lessees of said equipment have some tenuous, remote control over what mining gets done (until the link is severed and they use their single console). If they can actually pull off what they've been saying they're gonna do, it might not mean the end of Bitcoin but it sure as hell won't make it better.