@generalizethis
agree to disagree.
So you don't think developers should offer proof they can deliver on their promises?
Sorry, I meant on the grammar lesson haha.
The developers should offer proof only through open source release of the technology. I believe Monero should have done the same before collecting millions of dollars for Kovri.
Kovri is open source and existed before Monero.
So you agree that spectre should provide proof they solved anonymous staking?
Also, so you disagree that we should use common usage as the deciding factor on how we interpret words? I'm just discussing day-to-day usage and disregarding special circumstances such as an academic or poet coining a new term or a new use for existing terms.
Yes, but Kovri is not actually implemented.
I am not having the grammar argument. I am not arguing that my BA and Law Degree weren't my worst investment either. You can have the grammar argument title too. I still have my massive bag of both Monero and Spectre. One of which has fast transactions, stakes out a nice pay daily and doesn't have even a fraction of the fee.
If you don't want to argue word usage that's fine, but don't write, "agree to disagree" and expect me to disregard an inane argument. Just wanted clarification that that was the argument you were standing your ground at.
As far as Kovri goes, the code is being developed on GitHub, so anyone can peruse it and look to see if it is as it should be. Funding work before there is a finished product is common and no one funding the work was under any impression that that wasn't the case.
Nice side stepping, but let's repeat the question, and just "yes" or "no."
Do you think spectre coin should make available how they plan to make anonyous staking work?
My point in all of this has been that usually when a project fails at providing proof, it's because it is vaporware and there is no proof. If you want to invest on hope, that's fine--but don't pretend it's reasonable for others to do the same or that asking for proof is somehow asking too much.