Quote from: Fuserleer on January 11, 2016, 07:15:05 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 11, 2016, 06:39:40 PM

Quote from: Fuserleer on January 11, 2016, 06:31:05 PM

* A is making transactions, B, C and D are vying for endorsements and all have a connection to A.

B, C, D are other nodes, just like A

You are not of superior intellect to deserve to talk condescendingly to me.

high horses.....btw you speak to people in a much more condescending manner. Quite a shitty feeling isnt it

The record of voting power is agreed upon simultaneously with the transactions, as the endorsements are within the transactions.

If you come to a consensus on transactions you also come to a consensus on the voting power at that time, and who can vote in the future as a matter of course.

I really don't see how that is not clear from the example, and I'm especially dumbfounded that its still elusive to you if consider the content of the primer which is much clearer, even without the changes I've made published yet.

What you just wrote is ambiguous. There are so many details that are unspecified, that I can't even place those words into an overall context. I will not proceed to apply more effort to analyzing something where I am not given a clear and complete specification.

I am not going to read that primer again because it is the same writing style of being very verbose but doesn't clearly specify the design.

For example, agreed upon by whom? Recorded how? How is that agreement provable in a Byzantine fault compliant manner, etc.

Software is about details. Details matter.