Props to monsterer for facing the beast head on 
I am sorry but his response demonstrates that he ostensibly didn't understand the point about modularity versus dependent typing, i.e. when programmability is also the objective. I feel no desire whatsoever to try to teach him and other readers who couldn't possibly understand some stuff about computer science that is I guess not comprehensible to mere mortals. I already tried to explain it a few times. I guess he can learn about the effects of I/O, modularity, dependent typing, Turing completeness, and the Halting Problem from other sources if he is so inclined.
His vision of having scripts do dependent typing means he didn't pay attention to what I wrote about dependent typing. Or he somehow thinks what he wrote doesn't mean dependent typing.
These issues have been worked on already by academics. He is apparently unaware of their findings. I don't know of just one single canonical comprehensive resource I could cite for him.
Any way, just forsake the partitioning and the issue is "resolved". Well read below...
We shall wait for the rebuttal.. hehe
My time isn't free and I have expended years foruming. So that is the extent of my rebuttal.
One observation I make myself is that TPTB first implied pretty strongly that whatever the issue was (outside my understanding) it was so fundamentally flawed it was unsolvable guaranteeing Ethereums fall. However, as I understand it atm it's more of a "the direction is wrong, maybe there is a solution, Ethereum should hire me to solve the problem"
I said:
* partitioning (of scriptable block chains) is flawed and is unsolvable.
* verification must be (or will be regardless) centralized in order to scale
I have not changed my position on that. Call that failure or not, depending on your expectations. In other words in the real world, I don't think it is that scalable unless they forsake decentralization. I have a idea about how to keep decentralization in face of those realities I allege.
If they wanted to expend some of their $millions on me, I might find it difficult to decline if the amount offered was high enough (given it would be guaranteed income). But I really have something more exciting to work on which if I am successful could generate potentially $billions not $millions, so not only do I not expect them to be interested in my assistance, but I doubt I would really be interested as well. Because for one reason is I think their company culture is too much on hype and that turns me off. The mcap is already $400m so I am surely not interested in holding ETH for appreciation (although they may be able to hype it to $billion or more on next upgrade regardless of whether the tech works in the real world or not). I mean I don't really believe in the project. I have no idea if programmable block chains will even be useful for anything real. Perhaps I could become convinced, but then I might just decide to make own programmable block chain instead starting from a $10,000 mcap is much more attractive than starting from a $400m marketcap. They seem to be highly disorganized and do they really produce a lot of code? I don't know. I would need to dig in and any way I am already working on something which I find interesting.
So I guess I just wrote a paragraph which basically says, "don't hire me".
I feel an apology here is warranted in case I am completely wrong with my assumption. Clearly TPTB is a bright guy and surprisingly very pleasant as evident by the video. Shocking but true
Thanks. Well I really am laid back but I guess I have a limited patience because a forum can consume all of my time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 356 days a year for 3 fucking years. I am trying to quit and it just goes on and on an on. I have programming I need to be doing. Not this.