k00b

So you agree it's confusing? I wonder if someone already mentioned it to him. I think he should correct it.

But still, even replacing "proprietary" with "non-proprietary" doesn't make sense. He stills says

That places all security & control of the network in the hands of a small group of software developers, who must create virtual machines doing virtual work with virtual energy in a virtual world to create virtual security.

afterwards and is (clearly?) talking about Ethereum before (and after, as the quote about "virtual machines ..." shows.

So SHA-256 ASICs also doesn't make sense to me.

I can see what he's getting at. But I am not sure everyone else is when reading this

bitcoin

Why did Saylor say "proprietary software" in his article?

So you agree it's confusing? I wonder if someone already mentioned it to him. I think he should correct it.

But still, even replacing "proprietary" with "non-proprietary" doesn't make sense. He stills says

> That places all security & control of the network in the hands of a small group of software developers, who must create virtual machines doing virtual work with virtual energy in a virtual world to create virtual security.

afterwards and is (clearly?) talking about Ethereum before (and after, as the quote about "virtual machines ..." shows.

So SHA-256 ASICs also doesn't make sense to me.

I can see what he's getting at. But I am not sure everyone else is when reading this