generalizethis

He went out of his way to foul up (read the comment section for how obviously), not that that validates his assumption that ease-of-use = IOT suitability.

- Fungibility is broken when you have optional privacy--also stuff like this happens http://jeffq.com/blog/on-the-linkability-of-zcash-transactio...

-No one but the participants should trust a trusted setup, and even then, it's only if they can vouch for their OPSEC.

- B goes to my point that Green is inept as that should have been where they started.

- And they were cordial after they talked through the issues and Aumasson reliezed CFB's point (also, appeal to authority backfires when the authority agrees with the person you are criticizing).

Spend less time worrying about what I'm doing elsewhere and more on the argument in front of you. But it does seem fitting that you are supporting a dev who shows more concern for what others are doing than the product he helped drive into the ground.

Not my point, but yes.

Green is the only guy who could take something as novel as zsnarks and latch it onto a trusted setup (you need it, but it should have been 50 Peter Todds) and optional privacy. He trolled Monero with this same kind of vehemence when he should be turning his critical eye on zcash--so let's not pretend he's an infallible god when he can't even get his own project right. Also, if you read the side convo between CFB and Aumasson you'll get an indicator of why CFB was correct (also polite when someone intelligent listens).

If Heilman confuses human engineering for an exploit, he was the one trying to get over on naïve investors anxious to burn IOTA at the stake.

He's not an MIT researcher AFAIK. He's affiliated with DCI, which runs under the MIT banner. MIT actually had a favorable article in their review that DCI took issue with--but of course they were both going after a Swedish contract to create an e-money. IOTA survived the cut, which probably infuriates them even more.

Could it be that HN is filled with early adopter money anxious to portray a threat in the worst light possible?

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?

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.

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.

Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum: https://medium.com/@perfectstormtd/my-experience-of-building...

Why didn't you use a lightnode? Or the most recent exe? I did it the other day and it took a few minutes--your article made me feel like a genius.

I chuckled too, but mainly because he didn't download the most recent exe file and tried syncing to his own out of sync node when he could have more easily used a lightnode. It was almost like he was going out of his way to make it difficult. Hmmm, wonder why he'd do that?

They've never been focused on P2P and have made that clear to users--obviously they didn't hear, "Be your own bank." when that was said.

I'm not sure any blockchain scales "well," so it's like comparing turtle speeds. Likely they'll all be moving to lightening network for scalability, so it's a waste of time comparing them. The factors that are interesting for blockchains are immutability, fungibility and censorship resistance, and due to privacy, Monero wins 2/3. As for network security, that can change as more people appreciate how privacy influences cashlike properties--though I think Bitcoin will end up being a sort of digital gold going forward, which isn't a bad market to contral as far as price evaluation.

So deer are nature's equivalent of an off-balance washing machine?

"Soon"

It's ironic that wall street spent so many years saying Bitcoin is worthless, but is buying-in when it's lost its use case to competitors within cryptocurrency, and really is useless (except as a speculative vehicle or "store of value"). I guess BTC can fork infinitely, so there's that.

Bitcoin is one word, but you are definitely on point about China's mining prowess, those are asic miners, so not that super unless the figures are swarmed based.

Maybe they're wary of trolls and they reflect digital forums rather than historical upbringings. Don't we all wish life had an ignore button? Anyway, I wish the author had asked them; their answers would probably be more interesting than the author's helicopter parenting.

It isn't really a rating of mild/hot/atomic advantages, it's one offers fungibility and privacy and the other is a public ledger--they have vastly different design goals that will separate them more and more over time.