No worries, I understood your objective was merely to elicit responses for your and our edification on their threats about forking off Bitcoin. You were also hoping to ascertain their appraisal of my expertise and correctness of my analysis. I would also like their rebuttals/clarification (w/o requiring me to wade though years of archived bloviation mind programming and mental torture of indoctrination into their circlejerk culture), but afaics they didn’t make any on yesterday’s log.

It is quite relevant that you felt you had to be a sycophant to fit it there in order to get anyone to listen and respond to you. But to clarify, I’m not asking you to not participate in TMSR.

And one good result was because of reading those logs when you posted there, I noticed the discussion of the following Trilema blog.

Btw, I tentatively think (but want to think more) Mircea Popescu is incorrect in his misunderstanding of the economics of proof-of-work because PoW is incentives incompatible without an oligarchy on mining (thus his proposal is irrelevant and I solved the node economics problem in a different way which also deals with the incentives incompatibility issue). I will soon be posting a refutation to his face in his blog. In fact, that issue cuts directly to the generative essence of the insight of the consensus algorithm I designed for my Bitnet altcoin project.

Note I don’t pretend to be an expert on the Bitcoin code base and the subtleties thereof of the arcane distinctions between versions, BIPs, and fork offs. I’m on the big picture conceptual stuff and the intricacies of my designs.