I feel that you are really limited, you try to make the clever for nothing by giving definitions that everyone knows. I'm going to explain what a blockchain is, it is like a database, and I'll save hash in that database.
So when the smart contract will be hashed in sha256, it will serve as an id.
Now A wants to make a trade, it leaves coins for sale and goes offline, how the database will call its smart contract? She will call it using using the hash.
I will help you learn a few things, when you read definitions ask yourself what are they for, you will be able to understand them better, so after the definitions, it is the functions.
I've tried my best to stay objective and unbiased, as all I ever wanted was to get clarity on the claimed security of the validator's private key signing the smart contract, and I very well appreciate the language barrier (btw, English isn't my first language either).
Why was I trying to get that clarity? - Because I wanted to be sure that I'd be making a sound investment.
But throughout these almost two weeks, I kept seeing a lot of smoke and mirrors. You know, it's totally understood when a given mechanism is just a trade secret and the author doesn't want to disclose that information so early.
But then it would make perfect sense to just state it as-is, instead of going in circles but never actually delivering a consistent and clear picture of the intended implementation.
The direct undeserved personal attacks and baseless name-calling is very inappropriate, especially when the respondent themselves is well aware of the problems with the language barrier and Google Translate.
I don't feel like I need to embark on a defense line here, because what I've been told speaks more about the person saying that than it does about me.
But anyone interested in verifying my professional experience which is only 25 years too late to be "limited" is more than welcome to PM me and obtain a link to my LinkedIn profile.
So, I pass on this one.
Good day all! And good luck!