Yup. Those were precisely the committed errors. I should have stuck to my policy in the opening post and I deviated because monsterer had told me long ago that he would help peer review my design when I was ready and so I wanted to be respectful to him. I tried to bend but not break on the design details withholding, but then it ended up inflaming Smoothie the worst (also inflamed monsterer a bit too but we kept it level-headed). I think because Smoothie got caught into some simpleton thinking scenarios and then when I pointed out that he was kind of stumbling into it and needed to really digest the thread in detail, he got offended and started ramping up the "I am not humble". While at the same time, I was rubbing salt into the wounds by making inflammatory claims in r0ach's thread.

So yes mutual culpability for sure. But I am sort of guy that when I can play logic games with people I do, because it is sort of fun for me to watch how people fall into lapses of logic so easily. One of the reasons I have such great respect for smooth is I almost never catch him in one and he sometimes catches me.

Smooth was spot on that I should have refused to discuss the consensus algorithm.

Perhaps I should have made no claims in the opening post about the consensus algorithm, but then I'd basically have nothing to say since I've put the anonymity features on the back burner for the time being.

I will say this that you are all thinking about the delegation the wrong way conceptually. And until I reveal that epiphany it is going to seem like I am a kook.