[andras_gerlits]

Sure, there are other ways of doing this, the demos don't prove what I say, they only show that the theory works on a practical level. The science-paper however, does show how this mechanism can scale consistency.

Think about it this way: Our system simplifies running inter-system consistency and makes it much faster. Considering that Spanner exists, what proof would you accept to validate our claims?

I understand that reading all the material and putting them together isn't a small ask, but no new tech is easy to understand at first. Anyway, the material is there for anyone who cares to look and the system does what we claim it does.

I don't think anyone owes us their time to check our claims, but I don't think the fact that not lot of people will do this changes anything either.

[sausagefeet]

We already know this technique works, it's how any asynchronous database replication is implemented.

I've read all of your content and I can see nothing even close to, for example, the Spanner or Amazon Dynamo paper which go through the operation details of how the systems work. Literally your articles are just a bunch of metaphors followed by hand waving. No operational details.

I don't know if you know you're selling snake oil or just don't understand what you're implementing, but even in this thread you've gotten plenty of feedback that how you describe what you're doing is not coherent, you might want to address that. Or not, I don't know, if you're selling like hot cakes then keep doing it.

[andras_gerlits]

It's fine to not understand things. Being condescending is a natural reaction to feeling challenged, I really do understand where you're coming from. It's not even your fault, really. Anyway, when you're ready, feel free to pick it up again, the material doesn't take things personally and neither do I.

[sausagefeet]

Or I guess just not responding to any of the technical questions that have been brought to you. That's an option too.