What interest me is the role bitcoin plays in improving the signalling mechanism of money.
...
Whereas, the crypto-currency I am going to offer (not only fixes Bitcoins problems) but it also has perpetual deflation (the money supply is forever asymptotically shrinking), thus it will provide the signaling you aim for. I am not making this up now, as this was already in my white paper which is already recorded online.
That struck me as an interesting element in Ripple, although there the supply was instantly available. Anxiously curious to see how you've got the supply structured to avoid instamine.
Actually at the start the money supply in my design is expanding. As it matures, the money supply can begin contracting.
I contrasted with PoS and PoW:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1744718.msg17558554#msg17558554I see - not sure how it doesn't centralize then without some sort of demurrage or growing fee for older transactions.
So BFD to throttle bad actors, transaction ordering to facilitate reliable cross-chain commits while obviating the need for mining, and some form of cryptographic signature to seal the deal. It would seem that makes your approach more of a blockchain-agnostic protocol than a static design?
The tricky part appears to be the commit ordering. I'm guessing the initiators of the transaction poll a random subset of nodes for the given chain(s) to determine sequence based on block height instead of system time; redefining time in a sense.
Then there's the issue of the transaction(s) propagating through the respective network(s)...
Of course, I may be completely off base.