I'm the author of the game-channels paper, so let me reply to the later parts of your post (relating to Chimaera, and there mainly to my paper). From how I read your comment, the main (and actually only) point of criticism you have with the paper is that a defecting player can delay moves in a game channel deliberately up to a certain tolerance, thus removing the real-time aspect. In other words, all the other results of the paper (in particular, about the way to improve scaling by using off-chain interactions and the security of those) seem to be fine also in your opinion; at least, there are no actual arguments for why you think they would not be fine. Regarding your criticism about the delaying, there are a couple of important things to note:

First, both my paper and Chimaera are not only about real-time games. There are a lot of very interesting applications even when restricted to turn-based games, like a decentralised chess tournament, trading-card game or a massively scalable reincarnation of Huntercoin, to name a few. These are the situations at which the paper is aimed first and foremost, and for those, even a delaying opponent is more a minor nuissance than a critical problem.

Second, all that is only a problem if someone actually tries to deliberately delay the game. As long as players are honest, all works fine, including the proposed near-real-time protocol. So your claim that this section is "absolutely incorrect" is just bogus, unless you have additional arguments that you did not yet share in your post. Especially since all your points of criticism are actually pointed out and acknowledged already in the paper. No-one has created and run a decentralised real-time game so far, so we do not yet know how big of a problem such distracting players will really be (given that they can only annoy but not actually cheat others). We will just have to try and adapt to the challenges we see in a live system.

Third, note that the paper was published a year ago and written almost two years ago. Because of that, this paper alone is not the only innovation that we will be using for Chimaera. See for instance our recent post about ephemeral timestamps, which fix a lot of the problems still present in the dispute process of the original paper. (Although it admittedly does not completely fix the issues you mention about delaying a real-time game.)

Fourth, I'm not sure why you mention sidechains at all. It is true that I'm not aware of your arguments that they are "irreparably flawed", but that is not relevant here. The reason why the game-channels paper mentions sidechains is because the protocol it proposes has what can be seen as "private sidechains". But it does not use any of the techniques that the "official" pegged sidechains are built upon, so whatever your arguments against them are, they are not significant here.

By the way, I'm mainly interested in science and engineering myself and not a business person. So if you have indeed found a way to build a massively scalable, real-time distributed ledger that will "bombshell" all of the cryptocurrency space, I'm looking forward to it -- building on that instead of the current state-of-the-art would be good not least for Chimaera as well. So I'm awaiting your publication of the technical details how that will be accomplished -- so far, you only claim that you will be doing so, without describing any actual techniques that would give these claims credibility.