Again, irrelevant. This thread isn't "sillysaurus3 imagines how he would implement the perfect proxy," it's correcting an assumption about the actual existing proxy. I suggest if you want to pursue your off topic study of how to implement a proxy that doesn't introduce latency while performing the functionality, you do it elsewhere.
You should also read the HN guidelines before explaining downvote etiquette to me, because they will surprise you, apparently.
Why should I do it elsewhere? This is a thread about an interesting tech topic, and maybe some people might find that aspect interesting. This is the last comment I'm going to write to you because this is now wholly uninteresting to readers. I'll never understand this mindset of "Oh, well, there might be a misunderstanding here, but rather than clarify it calmly and rationally, I'll take this as a license to be angry and mean."
Who cares if someone thought that the proxy was going to work like X, but it turned out to work like Y? What matters is that if it can work like Z, then Z should be pointed out, especially if it enables some interesting aspect that people previously hadn't noticed. Anyway, you've successfully killed the fun of HN for me for the day, so see you later.
It says a lot about you that you think a calm explanation of your downvotes, as you are plainly in hysterics over them, is me being angry and mean. I meant elsewhere in the thread. You corrected someone who was correcting someone else, and you were wrong about the spirit of your correction. I was calmly suggesting that if you want to think through such a hypothetical you shouldn't do it as a misplaced correction.
You really need to unplug for a bit. I'm dead serious.
You should also read the HN guidelines before explaining downvote etiquette to me, because they will surprise you, apparently.