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