Re:IOTA: A tangled mess
by logicallee on Sunday December 17, 2017 @04:49PM
(#15947873)
You know, woodpanel, the reason I chose the structure I chose is because when I began to write it, I thought that I would be able to find that the whitepaper easily meets the criteria I selected beforehand for intentional indecipherability. In other words, I thought I would be able to show that it is just fishy.
For this reason, I decided to be very thorough in my review methodology, so that I wouldn't be accused of cherry-picking. After all, no paper is perfect. That's why I set up criteria beforehand. I had never read the paper.
As you can see, the paper actually (to my surprise) totally fails the intentional indecipherability criteria I picked.
The top-level comment in this case was totally unwarranted.
This is not the conclusion I expected to come to when I did the review. It would not be honest of me to hide my actual results.
(In addition to myself, you will notice that another person wrote "It is a good paper. I could follow everything".)
You would be better off writing a blog post and linking by to it.
Why? In a heated space, such as critiques of certain cryptocurrencies often evolve to, certainly with lots of vested interests ($$$ that is), posting such a huge amount of text under the top-rated comment while adding little information, but basically pushing all other arguments below-the-fold is destined to evoke ones fishiness tastebuds.
Whether or not you intended to push critique out of view, it definitely calls for HN to introduce some sort of folding/auto-truncate feature.