I should clarify what I mean by this. Dash's Evolution proposes a feature where a N-of-M quorum of master nodes can instantly confirm a transaction by sending their signed confirmations to the block chain. This quorum M is chosen by using historical block chain hashes (well it was current block chain hash until I pointed out to Evan that was insecure in this Altcoin Discussion forum, and so I assume he changed his design after Illodin pointed out the improvement).

So the theory is that even if there are orphaned chains, they won't disagree (conflict) on these quorum announcements. I pointed out to Evan that if he changes the quorums on every block then there will surely be conflicts. So again I assume he altered his design to not change the quorums very frequently, thus thinking he had fixed the problem. I decided to sheepishly be silent and let him go down that direction, knowing full well that it is flawed.

As I explained to monsterer in our recent discussion, the conflict occurs at the edge of the period. So if there is an orphan at the time that the quorum assignments change, then the two orphans can conflict on a double-spend, because there can be two quorums that are valid at the same time on the two different chains.

The design Evan is implementing is highly flawed because he didn't use my innovation to fix this fundamental problem. And I only revealed my fundamental innovation in the past days. Before that it was secret (well not totally but I doubt anyone would have deduced from my obscure solution to selfish-mining which was posted a long time ago).

For Evan to fix his design would require a total reworking of the concept of master nodes because all transaction confirmations have to be made orthogonal to the PoW chain, because otherwise my innovation can't be implemented else there can be conflicts between transactions on the block chain which prevent the innovation. So I see he is stuck in mud.

Perhaps Dash can pretend their feature isn't flawed if the masternodes are all loyal. But it isn't a design that could really scale decentralized.

And as for Monero, Aeon, Bitshares, etc, afaik they would have to in large degree scrap their existing code base and start over to achieve microtransactions. Note I haven't been following the latest developments on Aeon (and for Monero only the RingCT feature). Bitshares 2.0 I analyzed a little bit at the start of this thread.

I doubt any one will beat me to market now on this block chain scaling, microtransaction, 1 second transaction innovation. On my marketing plan, yeah someone might copy and beat me to market in December. I probably shouldn't have shared my marketing plan.

This will all be explained in more clairvoyant detail in a white paper in the future.