I'm the author of the blog post. Thanks for posting! I can answer any questions you have about the IOTA review or other shitcoin reviews.
Someone posted this 'rebuff' to your blog post on reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7we3x0/rebu...
Direct link: https://medium.com/@ralf/andreas-brekken-proves-he-has-no-cl...
I read the "rebuff". He looked up the wrong company named "Helix"... I'm not affiliated with the entity he mentions.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say your statement about shitcoins using social media to attract bag holders sounds about right.
I've noticed the mods on r/ripple are even worse. They ruthlessly delete any post that raises legitimate concerns about XRP and it's so called touted use of providing liquidity for cross border payment, that not a single bank appears to be using in a production environment.
And yes, statements like "IOTA an insane cult driven by fear of losing money" are FUD, regardless of how much sense your argument may or may not make.
The company claims that 100s of banks and financial institutes are using their technology, but ALL 100+ institutions are only evaluating / doing pilots.
Company has been around since 2011, I am very curious why there isn't a single big name that has put it's weight behind this for real production use.
Cryptocurrencies are pretty mainstream nowadays, everybody and their grandfather want to be a crypto-millionaire. Very few have the skills to decide whether experimental technologies like Ripple or IOTA have a future[1], it's just speculation for speculation's sake. Ask the average Ripple owner what they think of the "trustlines" and the risks associated with it. Actually, just ask them what a Ripple trustline is. I doubt you'll get many answers.
[1] Honestly I feel pretty knowledgeable about how cryptocurrencies work and yet it's not rare for one of these whitepapers to lose me. For many of them you need a pretty good technical background on cryptography, game theory and economy (with maybe a hint of sociology) to really be able to gauge whether an idea has merit or not.
Except for the validation of transactions done through their distributed consensus protocol, which is done through validator nodes sitting across the world at places like MIT and Microsoft.
No... That's just not true. Cuallix isn't. Moneygram finished their initial pilot and is beginning its deployment to internal transfers, which could be folowed by deployment to everywhere else.
> I am very curious why there isn't a single big name that has put it's weight behind this for real production use.
Banco Santander: https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/31617/banco-santander-p...
It says why right in the article: "A blockchain client has to be open-source for the users to predict its behavior."
I looked: https://github.com/iotaledger/wallet/releases
Also, a few user-friendly wallets are going to be released soon, but he chose to not wait? The whole thing smacks of deliberate attempt to fail. He couldn't have made worse choices--unless he had decided to wear a blindfold and rewrite the code.
* the maintainers of the project, who built the executable, and
* that the build process itself hasn't been compromised.
Since a selling point for cryptocurrencies in general is that it's a system that works without having to trust third parties, the argument being made is that it should be easy to build things from scratch.
...and the conclusion that the source is back door free is only relevant if you then actually build the software yourself. You can only assume that the exe was built from the unmodified source code if you trust those who built it.