My only point was that the only place true proof can lay is in examining that code. Any human language description of the blockchain's operation is by nature going to be a simplification or abstraction of what the code actually contains.
I disagree. Implementation of the design can suffer from bugs, only the design holds the true proof. If this remains in the author's head, then any claims about robustness or performance will remain just that, claims.
Man, you have every right to dissagree but that doesent mean that you are right.
VNL as working project is a proof and not a claim, you can test performance and robustness by yourself and let us know if something not working as it should and lot of us are doing that for quite some time.
IMHO John made everything available and code is proof, if I can't understand it than it's my problem.
I would rather have working project with short white paper giving basic informations and roadmap for further developmet than white paper on few 100 pages whithout proper implementation and with detailed explanation what could be exploited.
With more than 6 months with VNL I can say that only constant with VNL is fast development and as far as I can see that will remain the same and that is what makes difference to almost all altcoins based on old copy/paste code with some tweeks and new gimmicks.
I know that all this is frustrating to many developers and teams but... you can still buy some VNL while is cheap and you'll be able to mine it again soon, so...
... I think you should try to produce double spend transaction and test VNL on all things you are concerned about and let us know what have you achieved.
Until than, thank you for your concerns.
