Hacker News Reader

Comment by nemetroid | Hacker News Reader

> Why didn't you use a lightnode? Or the most recent exe?

It says why right in the article: "A blockchain client has to be open-source for the users to predict its behavior."

The most recent is exe is opensource--it's right there on the top of the git. In fact, he probably had to scroll past it to download v2.5.6

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 exe is likely built from open source code. Maybe someone modified the code to insert a back door before building? If you use precompiled binaries, you have to trust

* 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.

No, you can peruse the code for yourself if you need to look for backdoors. He was obviously choosing the path of most resistance so he could prove his own conclusion--not that small devices need to run a wallet or the process won't be automated in the future or it won't be competent IOT developers performing these task--still not sure how P2P usability equates to M2M usability, but let's skip over those details and rationalize why he spent more time finding ways to screw up than to honestly perform the task of using a wallet--in any case, his bungling hardly seems genuine.

> No, you can peruse the code for yourself if you need to look for backdoors.

...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.

Gotcha, assumed he would be trying to create a review pertinent to the normal user (given the memeness) as most will use an exe--still doesn't excuse his bungling (read Paul's response on why) or the strange conclusion that his P2P experience is pertinent to an argument as to IOTA's suitability as an IOT network. This is the major criticism that's been glossed over by most here. Can anyone try to rationalize why that assumption isn't absurd?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com