Hacker News Reader

Comment by RoqueNE | Hacker News Reader

Wonder why you only post the old negative articles. There are maybe 5 articles that claim they found something negative, but 20 that are positive or directly debunking the negative articles using credible professional sources.

The nonsense about the 'vulnerability' neha found got destroyed in multiple answers. either directly from the devs or from independent sources.

Just yesterday one of the core devs answered (again) to the claim by narula: https://medium.com/@comefrombeyond/cfbs-comments-on-https-ww...

Your post shows the classical signs of a FUD-Attack. Excellent explained in this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201.... Here is IOTA as Victim of ongoing targeted FUD-Campains identified.

View on HN

> Wonder why you only post the old negative articles. There are maybe 5 articles that claim they found something negative, but 20 that are positive or directly debunking the negative articles using credible professional sources.

here you have a couple more:

1) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQcxVVhUIAAVAY0.jpg:large

2) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQQKnDiU8AAQJRW.jpg

3) https://hackernoon.com/why-i-find-iota-deeply-alarming-934f1...

I have plenty of private email discussions and transcripts from calls with 2 of the IOTA guys from when they started out. All I say at this stage is that they have been engaging in pump+dump. The situation with their "fake" partners was carefully designed to help with that.

Because he's not invested in iota like you clearly are.

You don't have to be invested in something to be unbiased.

How does the fact that he is not invested give him the right to spread false informations and throw dirt? When i see bullshit, i call it out. simple as that.

My opinion is as good as his. But my sources are much better and reliably researched and obviously not biased.

A developer defending his project with a blogpost that mostly seems preoccupied with attacking the authors instead of their argument is "obviously not biased"? That response makes them look even worse.

did you literally just sign up for a comment on this post?

bad idea to come in here guns blazing ... what usually works very well on the Internet as a newcomer to any site is to lurk a little. get a feel for the vibe and the people, then decide if you fit-in and comment.

That i get heavy downvoted here just proof that i hit a nerve. Job done. I'm happy with that.

People seem to just see the FUD Articles and think right away "Oh yea, MIT, must be true", without even thinking about checking the sources.

If the old members here don't want to read the other side, okay, but newcomers should not get dragged in this vortex of misinformations.

Seriously people, read all information and you will see very fast that 99% of all posted Anti-IOTA articles are biased nonsense.

so much that IOTA hat to launch a smear-campaign against MIT researchers claiming their "arguments are FUD because they are invested in competing technology" (like zcash or btc).

You're an anonymous troll with 0 karma[1] that has only just signed up to "correct/convert" people. Please, just go away. Thanks.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=RoqueNE

Everybody signs up at one time or another. Highlighting the fact someone's passionate enough to discuss a topic is not indicative of ill-doing. Just means they're new. So were you at one time.

As for the technical meaning of IOTA.. Well, it seems interesting. IIRC, they're doing some sort of DAG so blockchain based slowdowns don't occur. But they're doing really funny stuff with trinary math and rolling their own crypto. Usually not a good sign in the least. Makes me hesitant in trusting anything about this, at least until people smarter than I confirm they did mathematically correct operations. Still, using trinary makes most algorithmic tools just not work...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com