- Use of ternary logic [1]

- Writing their own hash function [1]

- Claiming that the flaws in the hash function were 'copy protection' [2]

- The Github issues page for their wallet client [3]

I've heard that the DAG approach has merit, but from what I've seen I would not trust this team to execute on it.

[EDIT]: Almost forgot the black-box closed source 'central coordinator' [4]

[1]: https://medium.com/@neha/cryptographic-vulnerabilities-in-io...

[2]: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Come-from-Beyond/a84ab861...

[3]: https://github.com/iotaledger/wallet/issues

[4]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/7c3qu8/coordinator_ex...

2: Why is explained here: https://blog.iota.org/the-transparency-compendium-26aa5bb8e2... - CyberCrypt is hired to review and audit it.

3: The wallet is secure and does what it needs to do, no, it's not very pretty or user friendly but it works. A new wallet (Trinity wallet) will be released very soon.

ad 2. From the article: "Let’s begin with the common sense, IOTA’s Tangle is a significant leap forward from blockchain". Why do you believe this subjective superlative when the protocol is still in beta and heavily contested? It's like saying: "Fusion reactors are a significant leap foward", while no production ready fusion reactors exist. You cannot make this claim unless you're willing to attest to the correctness and production-readiness. This seems common sense to me.

ad 2: What is this document? "The Transparency Compendium", "Transparency Report", "Blog post"? All of them are mentioned, but there is no mention whether this is an official statement, or just a sputter of random thoughts by the author. It seems official, but isn't.

ad 2: No mention of CyberCrypt in that article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also, Occam's Razor. That's what I like about the original bitcoin protocol, it's as simple as necessary, but not simpler.

ad 3: It doesn't need to be pretty or user friendly. The complaints are about people losing their IOTA's and all kind of other complaints. Please address these complaints head-on, instead of just making blanket remarks about user-friendliness.

How does that work? Trying to find information, it looks like it's designed for devices of the future that don't exist; so it's built on assumptions that may be plain wrong.

-Can you explain why the use of ternary logic is red flag? I can explain why it is not but you have to justify your statement first. You calling the use of ternary logic a red flag must be based off of something I assume.

-They used a custom Hash functio called "Curl". But they now replaced it with KECCAK-384. Curl is now being reviewed by a third party.

-For this, I will let CFB (one of the devs) to explain. https://medium.com/@comefrombeyond/cfbs-comments-on-https-ww...

-wallet is a nuisance for some users I agree. But majority of users are fine with the wallet. Of course you can only hear those who had problems.

However since all modern hardware is binary, the use of ternary logic only serves to introduce an unnecessary software based translation layer, simultaneously increasing complexity and reducing performance.

I would consider this to be an example of very poor engineering judgement. Good software is simple software. I would be extremely concerned if a colleague suggested such needless overcomplication.

In the end of the day, you have to choose as a dev.

So to your point, I don't consider it a red flag. You can even interpret it as "thinking outside the box". Yes ternary is more complex, that's what the devs are here for.

How does that work? Isn't it being emulated on binary hardware?

They're actually working on trinary hardware with the closely related JINN project.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1273040.msg13159701#...

And in the end they are "just" red flags (= warning signs), which might hint at fatal flaws, but also might not.

The above is a proper paper on how to do math for a DAG based protocol.

Serguei Popov, the research mathematician behind IOTA DAG based protocol, claims that it is impossible to make proofs behind the tech. [1]

[1]: https://medium.com/@johndom/iota-and-spectre-64ee12d9b1a8

Before I bought a single IOTA, I read this whitepaper and it's pretty indecipherable. I'm a pretty technical person myself, but this paper was not written in a way that anyone can easily understand.

That Code Suppository "article" (blog post) is complete rubbish.

The issues in 2nd article have been fixed.

At least please read up and educate yourself before conditioning others into your opinion.

> Also he claims have been debunked by the IOTA team

only that they haven't been debunked[1].

Curl/Kerl should be reason enough for anyone to run away screaming. If somebody peddles a secure e2e encrypted messaging app based on an untested freshly invented hashing or encryption algorithm everyone would agree it's wrong. Why should the behavior displayed by IOTA team / management be treated with silk gloves? Whenever I see somebody vouching for IOTA I can only imagine 2 reasons:

  1) person doesn't have a clue about basic engineering / security principles
  2) person owns IOTA ans hence is personally too deep invested to be unbiased

There's a pretty complete thread on reddit with most FUD in it and why it's not valid:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/7j81tq/fud_copy_pasta...

Here's an article by one of the IOTA founders addressing your second article:

https://blog.iota.org/curl-disclosure-beyond-the-headline-18...

The nonsense about the 'vulnerability' neha found got destroyed in multiple answers. either directly from the devs or from independent sources.

Just yesterday one of the core devs answered (again) to the claim by narula: https://medium.com/@comefrombeyond/cfbs-comments-on-https-ww...

Your post shows the classical signs of a FUD-Attack. Excellent explained in this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201.... Here is IOTA as Victim of ongoing targeted FUD-Campains identified.

here you have a couple more:

1) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQcxVVhUIAAVAY0.jpg:large

2) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQQKnDiU8AAQJRW.jpg

3) https://hackernoon.com/why-i-find-iota-deeply-alarming-934f1...

I have plenty of private email discussions and transcripts from calls with 2 of the IOTA guys from when they started out. All I say at this stage is that they have been engaging in pump+dump. The situation with their "fake" partners was carefully designed to help with that.

My opinion is as good as his. But my sources are much better and reliably researched and obviously not biased.

bad idea to come in here guns blazing ... what usually works very well on the Internet as a newcomer to any site is to lurk a little. get a feel for the vibe and the people, then decide if you fit-in and comment.

As for the technical meaning of IOTA.. Well, it seems interesting. IIRC, they're doing some sort of DAG so blockchain based slowdowns don't occur. But they're doing really funny stuff with trinary math and rolling their own crypto. Usually not a good sign in the least. Makes me hesitant in trusting anything about this, at least until people smarter than I confirm they did mathematically correct operations. Still, using trinary makes most algorithmic tools just not work...

People seem to just see the FUD Articles and think right away "Oh yea, MIT, must be true", without even thinking about checking the sources.

If the old members here don't want to read the other side, okay, but newcomers should not get dragged in this vortex of misinformations.

Seriously people, read all information and you will see very fast that 99% of all posted Anti-IOTA articles are biased nonsense.

You're an anonymous troll with 0 karma[1] that has only just signed up to "correct/convert" people. Please, just go away. Thanks.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=RoqueNE