Jump to content

Nedkt

Member
  • Posts

    237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nedkt

  1. Closing in on 11K !!! It went from 10K to 11K in a day. Prepare for an epic fall across the board. Everything is running far too hot. Hope you are in cash to take advantage of the bargains at the bottom.
  2. Neo looks bad even relative to the rest of the market.
  3. What specifically does BOSCH say about their "partnership" with IOTA? How about Volkswagon? Do they talk about it on their websites? I see IOTA announcing all these partnerships, but I came from that industrial background. Small companies would claim "partnership" because some dude in a lab at IBM was investigating their product and asked them a few questions. Show me a Volkswagon press release talking up IOTA. If that exists, great. If not, better be careful. They still don't even have a stable wallet. At least about a week ago I saw continuous non-stop complaints about their wallet and lost funds. The safest place to hold IOTA is on the exchange. That's problematic. Also, a couple weeks ago, their network went down for days with minimal communication. That's problematic. Finally, they continue to have the vast majority of their trading on a single exchange. My opinion stays the same. Good for short term trading if you want to take advantage of the swings, extremely risky and questionable for anything like a long term hold.
  4. Monero is massively tested and trusted. Their team is outstanding and they are very active. Monero is anonymous now and their roadmap solid.
  5. David runs IOTA, he isn't the lead dev. Lead dev is Sergey Ivancheglo (aka Come from Beyond). Those two are both a piece of work. But that isn't David. Parody twitter. I think.
  6. But whether or not they "know their stuff" is much of the debate. A lot of knowledgeable people from outside of the project saying they have made bad choices and mistakes in implementation, that there are big security unknowns that are downplayed and that they are being deceptive in their practices. It's not an appearance issue, there are multiple specific concerns. And the IOTA team circles the wagons and claims everyone from the crypto world that dares to criticize them must have an anti-iOTA agenda because they are afraid of IOTA.
  7. Those two ARE the project. Those two gone, no IOTA. CfB owns the development. Everyone else is incidental.
  8. and..... here is David Sonstebo's reply to Vitalik Buterin (just the unfortunately-typical-IOTA part): ...what is up with your sudden onslaught of cheap immature attacks on IOTA? I remember a couple of years ago you were so annoyed at how all Bitcoiners made fun of Ethereum and we always supported you, your f***ing roadmap includes the building blocks we made before you even started typing your whitepaper, yet you felt it appropriate to suddenly attack IOTA out of context? Weak. -------------------------------- That speaks for itself. This exchange is funny too. https://twitter.com/nicksdjohnson/status/912676954184323073
  9. https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/72l7kp/why_i_find_iota_deeply_alarming_eth_core_dev/dnk2zdy/
  10. IOTA criticisms from an ether team guy..... https://medium.com/@weka/why-i-find-iota-deeply-alarming-934f1908194b Note the response from David Sonstebo: This is not even deserving of a full response. 140 character medium suffices, those who want to see how pathetic and ridiculous this slanderous attempt by Nick is should just read the tweet: https://twitter.com/nicksdjohnson/status/912676954184323073 In short: Nick is afraid of IOTA. https://medium.com/@DavidSonstebo/this-is-not-even-deserving-of-a-full-response-542e8e1ddcba --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the TYPICAL IOTA RESPONSE to concerns others raise. They attack and claim slander, FUD, etc. I would seriously run, not walk from IOTA as a long term investment.
  11. Bitfinex implemented months ago. They aren't a bunch of rocket scientists. If everyone involved wanted to make it happen it wouldn't be that hard.
  12. US customers can use bitfinex but you have to cheat. You need a VPN and you can't get validated. So big money would be out unless you want to take a major risk. I agree it's a major red flag. Bitfinex has been highlighted for massive manipulation before. I refuse to believe other major exchanges would not have added IOTA by now (it's been a good deal of time) unless there was some issue stopping them, and the "technical challenge" isn't valid. It's supposed to be a major, revolutionary technology and yet not a single exchange beyond Bitfinex will add it? Makes no sense.
  13. That article was techno-babble nonsense. I wouldn't look to that for anything useful. From other sources I see CfB now claims they switched out the hash not because it was flawed, but because it was "publicized" and they might as well save the extra cycles and move to the other (proven secure) hash. I have a hard time buying that. The entire IOTA community is in auto-attack mode on anything remotely questioning their crypto or the closed-source nature of the coordinator. My bottom line take on this is as follows: They wrote a bad hash. It was found to be problematic by the MIT team. They claim they had publicized this BEFORE the MIT team found it, saying "see our blog", but there is nothing whatsoever about a compromised hash in their blog. MAYBE they did try to write a hash with some kind of built in "copy protection", but they hosed it up whether that was a true intention or some story to cover up after the fact. Now they moved to a standard hash. However, this hash won't serve their requirements. They need a new kind of hash that doesn't exist yet. They claim to have brought on some of the top crypto talent in the world now, but no names given. And I still only see the one guy, CfB, doing and leading and deciding everything. Not a peep as to who these world-class cryptographers are. Even if they DO get a great team, they are years out from inventing a low-energy consumption hash for the IOT world (assuming they can). Further, I see a real risk as this entire project seems to me to be in the hands of one guy, Sergey Ivancheglo (CfB). Sergey and the IOTA team seems to think all other cryptocurrency projects are against them. They have really whipped up their project supporters with this story. That's a poor outlook, but to each project their own. I also remain very concerned with only a single exchange, Bitfinex, hosting IOTA. Bitfinex is probably the most manipulated exchange out there. There is NO reason other exchanges couldn't have been brought online by now, no matter the complexity. They all want to make money. The story I have seen is its either too complex or they are afraid of IOTA upending the crypto space. I call bullsh*t on both. A single exchange with their current daily volume is nothing but pump and dump bait. Nice if you catch a wave as a trader, but very questionable as to why they haven't expanded to at least one other exchange by now. One other thing is clear after these last few weeks, Sergey Ivancheglo actually wears the pants on this project. Everyone else, including their lead David Sønstebø is secondary. It's a one-man show. Not a deal breaker, as so for example is Litecoin, but something to be aware of because they don't make this clear to people coming in. This is probably why I have always been rebuffed when asking for a complete org chart. There really isn't one. All this stuff adds up the cumulative disadvantages and question marks. Anyway, that's my take.
  14. That's the issue. My understanding is the vulnerability exists so they can hack any copycats. It's (supposedly) not an issue for the real iota because of the coordinator, which covers for the (supposedly) designed in back door. They refuse to release coordinator code or let anyone examine it because it would (supposedly) be too risky. All security depends on something no one can examine. So the whole security thing is circular. It's really a problem in my opinion.
  15. Yeah I saw this claim on their reddit, the IOTA team claims the broken hash function was a purposeful backdoor put in by CfB. o_O So they implement a vulnerable hash and when it is pointed out, they claim it was made vulnerable on purpose so they could backdoor the currency for "copy protection" purposes. Really, if that isn't a burning red flag I don't know what is. That's assuming it was really a purposeful backdoor built into IOTA and this wasn't just an excuse after the fact for poorly written and executed crypto algorithms. There is one thing that people might not have picked up on in that article. IOTA team makes it sound like they asked the MIT team to examine their hash (see Exhibit A). If so, then why didn't they disclose the backdoor/compromised code at that time to the researchers looking for vulnerabilities? Seems like a pretty glaring item to point out lest your backdoor be highlighted as simply bad crypto (which is exactly how it played out). On this one: As for Curl, the IOTA Foundation has already subcontracted a team of 5 world-class cryptographers, as well as 3 independent ones to come up with a final design of Curl and then start the long peer-reviewed process, as was always the plan. No change. Who? Names of the 5 world class cryptographers? The IOTA team needs to lay out everything at this point or they have zero credibility.
  16. Sure. And maybe there are things going on I am not aware of. I suspect not, because it would have been to the IOTA team's advantage to make all things that are positive for them public. But it is possible.
  17. Could they do it? Yeah, sure. Anything is possible. But here are the key points: 1. Making hash functions that are cryptographically secure is a very hard mathematical problem. Making one with the added requirement of being computationally easier to meet their energy consumption requirements while still being provably secure is just really really hard, if it is possible at all. You can have top notch coders and it won't matter. Bitcoin used proven crypto, even though its implementation was revolutionary. 2. They tried once and failed. 3. It will take a long time to design the hash and to get it peer reviewed. And no guarantee it isn't found to be vulnerable a year or two into that process. Judging by most attempts in this field, failure is more likely than not. Start over again. 4. Do they have a crack team of cryptographers on the payroll to make this happen? Like, really leading people in the field? I don't see it. I see the one main dev who did the original hash. Maybe they have more going on behind the scenes than I am aware of, but I have spent enough time in their day-to-day gathering places to see that CfB is "the guy". He's their main technical driver. Not enough. Now, you might find IOTA continues to oscillate and might reach back to $1 even. Possible, as every currency gets a pump with some regularity. Especially on bitfinex. You could yet make good money on it. I expect if BTC bounces, IOTA will follow to some extent. But my position is that IOTA is about as high risk as you can get for long term holding and you have an increasing potential for an unrecoverable crash if anything new is uncovered.
  18. Fixing some at-risk code or bad code is one thing, rolling a new low energy hash is a whole different level of difficult. IOTA probably does have code issues, but this hash issue puts them a long way from any kind of real IOT product. Unless they keep their DAG, ditch the IOT target, keep the proven (higher energy cost) replacement hash, and move to target the same things XRP, LTC, BTC and the rest target. But then what? Even their name has IOT in it. They would be turning their back on their core use-case because they are admitting the hash issue shut them down on it. No matter how you cut it, their viability would be at great risk.
  19. Well, the IOTA guys admitted the new hash was flawed, because they replaced it after the MIT team went to them. The question now is what do they do long term? They are using a temporary solution. They need a new hash that meets their requirements and they are years away from this, when you include the peer review process, assuming they don't try to bypass it again.
  20. That's funny. I avoided Neo for the same reason. They have nothing going on behind the curtains.
  21. Probably a good number of alts are poor on code review, but many of them are either forks of existing proven solutions or just tokens growing on the back of ethereum, so they shuffle along without a big disaster. IOTA is trying to create a very unique product. For that I give them credit. But the implementation is very hard. It's VERY VERY hard if you are also going to create your own crypto and if that crypto has a unique requirement of being low energy consumption for their IOT roadmap. A proven secure hash that is also low-energy is a major breakthrough. They will now have to start from scratch and from what I see their main dev is talented, but he's not a mathematician or renowned cryptographer. They need a team of very talented people. And this doesn't touch the overall security of the IOTA network. I have seen claims that "attacks make it stronger", but that's marketing fluff.
  22. Here's the other thing, the crypto and math community that verifies integrity on these things spends their time on high profile and high impact stuff. It's not a giant group of global players. A custom hash on an alt-coin won't get much attention from the broader community. It will take a long time to gain confidence, again, assuming more problems aren't found with whatever updated hash they submit. If they submit it at all. This is a much longer and more fraught road than they are letting on in their responses. They are really in a very tough position.
  23. That's really my biggest concern. Without the low energy hash, they have no product.
  24. EXACTLY. The function they replaced it with doesn't pan out with their IOT aspirations for this currency. If they want to move back to their more efficient hash, the peer review process takes years with NO GUARANTEE it will survive. Lots of hash functions and crypto schemes never make it past peer review.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.