Hey thanks for your interest.

As can be seen directly from your quotation there, I am directly asking someone else to do the firefighting.

The document you listed made a number of claims, almost none of them true/related to what I am trying to do. One example (of many) is that the paper claims that one should avoid departing from the trusted path of the Bitcoin software, and that is exactly where I intend to remain (the system I have in mind is an exact copy of the Bitcoin system with different block validation rules). If you read anything about the project you would know it is more like Namecoin/Bitmessage, not a true "Altcoin".

I am simply asking about a type of Oracle (whose legitimacy has already been established by Gavin, Mike Hearn, and others), but also leaving the design open to a more general solution.

I also don't feel that you represent the community, as, to the contrary, other senior community members have encouraged me to continue.

With respect, you comment was completely ignorant and unhelpful. If you continue to make comments of this low quality I intend to use the forums 'Ignore' feature. I hope for your own sake you will apologize for your misunderstanding.