No, it was on these forums - there was a consensus primer, but it lacked critical information. What I could discern at the time was that it was vulnerable to long range attacks (like POS), and there were edges cases around when the validating nodes changed. Both of these problems challenge the idea of an append only ledger, unless you add trusted authorities.
Did you announce the details of these long range attacks you perceived, I don't recall.
Also the voting nodes change at specific intervals, theres an edge case where the majority of the selected voting nodes are offline, or unavailable and dont vote. That then results in a failed vote and the ledger state is in "limbo" until the next set of selected voting nodes then vote. As they are voting on the state of the ledger, their vote encapsulates the data as a matter of course from the missing vote. Not really a critical issue.
I figured voting would be the way you would try to do it.
Which vote occurred first? How do you prove it with a mathematical data structure?
Can't be done without a LCR or centralization.
If you even bothered to read the primer I posted months ago, such a realization you just had would of been apparent MONTHS ago.
You don't need to know which vote occurred first, apparently you're smart, so get your head out of the box a bit and think.
You did not address the technical challenge. You just used ad hominem and inconclusive statements to avoid it.
What people don't like is when they can't bullshit any more.
Edit: When ever someone asks you to actually give details, you get offended and state I have revealed no technical work in public, which is obviously false. Just read this thread.
Also you've forgotten that I debated you on your primer back in Sept or whenever you created that thread.