I don't really care if you value my comments or not, I'm putting my complaints and suggestions on the record. You can read my entire posting history and see all the context of my current irritation with Invictus. If you have specific questions I'm happy to educate.
Nice.
For the record I did try asking nicely with sugar on top and this is your response. Sorry if I'm not part of your little club, but why in hell should I be bothered wasting my time researching each and every posts from someone who can't be bothered to explain his current comments or respond in a normal way. So if you don't care if your points come across, you consequently can't blame people for ignoring what you write.
Why would I want to be "educated" by you anyway, are you some computer science super genius or Nobel-price winner for economics? The whole reason I wanted to discus things with you is because I think you made some factual errors and that there are some actual real technical reasons why things can't work the way you want them to. I'm not particularly interested in a lesson in arrogance, I had my fair share of that in university.
It seems like you're taking things really personally, what exactly did I say that offended you? I assumed you didn't want to take the time to get the full picture, which is why I offered to answer any specific questions you might have had. Answering your question about stuff that I've taken the time to learn about and you haven't sure seems like education to me and yet you bristle at the term.
Did you actually have any question, or do you just like complaining about me?
I'm not a native English speaker and was neither offended nor addressing you personally, which I think is impossible to do via forums anyway. It seems I completely failed in trying to communicate what I was trying to say, so I'll try again and add some specific examples, even-though I still think it would have been better to do so in a separate thread, instead of in response to a completely unrelated topic.
In your comments you assume too much and that is the very definition of arrogance (google translate assumption -> latin) and it gets in the way of some of the valid points you make and in the discussion afterwards.
I agree with most of your points about Invictus dropping the ball in regards to marketing, stimulating community involvement, attracting investment etcetera. However at the same time you completely destroy those points by stating as facts some of your personal assumptions that are dubious to say the least.
For example the statement that everything would have worked out fine if Invictus would have stuck to the plan. This is however not corroborated by any facts. Plans fail the moment you execute them and you are supposed to adapt after that. What you most definitely should not do, is stick to the plan after it failed. While you might have missed the statements Dan Larimer made regarding this and I agree that Invictus could and should have done a better job at communicating the reasons for the change of plans, your alternate, oversimplified and personal version of the situation does more harm then good at clearing things up.
Your proposed solution of going with some multi-staged, patch-work, unmaintainable, easily attacked and guaranteed to fail pow-blockchain and then migrating to a new POS-system, sounds completely ludicrous. If Invictus had gone that Dr. Frankenstein route I would have had no faith in their abilities and walked away laughing. Talk about waste of time, effort and resources and suicidal pr move.
Also I don't get what your beef with the AGS fundraiser is, especially seeing how PTS is still there. I have yet to see a better solution for a public fundraiser anywhere else. I have not seen any evidence as of yet of Invictus being particularly frugal or irresponsible with those funds, but I'd be more than happy to be enlightened if you have some information we mere forum-dwellers do not.
Again I'd rather have the discussion about the past, present and future failings of Invictus in a dedicated thread with all information easily accessible, instead of having to tell people to read someones entire post history, expect them to wade to an unholy amount of incoherent and irrelevant rubbish and then suggest to enlighten them should they prove to be too stupid to know what I mean. Your posts should stand on their own and not need to be unlocked by your own personal "expertise", because as you say your person should be completely irrelevant to the discussion.