...the cumbersome issue of needing to operate all blockchains at the same time meant they opted for the cleaner Multigateway solution instead which avoids the need for that.
Cumbersome you say?
Centralized I say. Which is no good in my humble opinion.
Ok, odd way to attempt a rebuttal. The cumbersome aspect I refer to is the proposal you cite Blockchain as heading towards, which would require the user to download all the Blocknet coin blockchains in order to use the cross-node features.
So to acknowledge the reference to just how cumbersome that would actually be, by way of disparaging the distributed Multigateway tech by, incorrectly, calling it centralised, isn't actually a rebuttal, it's a, "You say there's a problem? Sure, I'll just . . . look over there something something something!"
...you don't actually appear to even be trying to offer anything different
Ok, now you're just trolling. Need I recall that my words were explicitly that "the Blocknet *is* something different"?
FFS, please lay off on the insta-accusations of trolling whenever someone is attempting to engage you in any meaningful conversation about Blocknet's development.
You keep saying, "Blocknet *is* something different", but everything you have said so far indicates that it isn't really very different at all, other than you regularly alluding to something something something mumble mumble can't say.
Given that your project raised a whole bunch of BTC from the community, I'd say you have something of a responsibility to actually clearly define the what, how and when of Blocknet that is going to be innovative and different because, so far, I've yet to see anything that's new given much of what is being cited as innovative has turned out to be methodologies and tech previously developed/discarded by others months ago.
