I hate how all the coin subs on reddit call anything that's not postive about their coin as F.U.D.

Someone posted this 'rebuff' to your blog post on reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7we3x0/rebu...

Direct link: https://medium.com/@ralf/andreas-brekken-proves-he-has-no-cl...

IOTA an insane cult driven by fear of losing money. No one uses the software. They use social media to attract more bag holders.

I read the "rebuff". He looked up the wrong company named "Helix"... I'm not affiliated with the entity he mentions.

Thanks for the clarification. I posted your review on r/cryptocurrency and was quickly down-voted to oblivion.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say your statement about shitcoins using social media to attract bag holders sounds about right.

I've noticed the mods on r/ripple are even worse. They ruthlessly delete any post that raises legitimate concerns about XRP and it's so called touted use of providing liquidity for cross border payment, that not a single bank appears to be using in a production environment.

If this was IOTA in its final form the value of IOTA should be 0. It's great that this is not the case!

And yes, statements like "IOTA an insane cult driven by fear of losing money" are FUD, regardless of how much sense your argument may or may not make.

I love learning about cryptocurrencies through shitcoins. It helps keeping perspective in check. Keep up the great work.

Thanks! If you have a shitcoin you want me to review, I'm open to suggestions.

Don't know if it's a shitcoin, but can you review XRP / Ripple?

The company claims that 100s of banks and financial institutes are using their technology, but ALL 100+ institutions are only evaluating / doing pilots.

Company has been around since 2011, I am very curious why there isn't a single big name that has put it's weight behind this for real production use.

I interviewed to work at Ripple in 2013! I don't know how interesting the review would be. Ripple is completely centralized. I'll think about it.

Few days ago there was a post in HN basically saying "centralized = no need blockchain" -- why they need to do in blockchain then?

These days I feel like it's more "if it's even a little bit decentralized and uses public key cryptography then you can call it a Blockchain and people will throw money at you". It's the new "Cloud Computing" basically.

Cryptocurrencies are pretty mainstream nowadays, everybody and their grandfather want to be a crypto-millionaire. Very few have the skills to decide whether experimental technologies like Ripple or IOTA have a future[1], it's just speculation for speculation's sake. Ask the average Ripple owner what they think of the "trustlines" and the risks associated with it. Actually, just ask them what a Ripple trustline is. I doubt you'll get many answers.

[1] Honestly I feel pretty knowledgeable about how cryptocurrencies work and yet it's not rare for one of these whitepapers to lose me. For many of them you need a pretty good technical background on cryptography, game theory and economy (with maybe a hint of sociology) to really be able to gauge whether an idea has merit or not.

Blockchains seem to be really good at raising capital.

> Ripple is completely centralized

Except for the validation of transactions done through their distributed consensus protocol, which is done through validator nodes sitting across the world at places like MIT and Microsoft.

review. NEO...Not a shitcoin.

My impression was that even those aren't using XRP (the token) but are using non-cryptocoin stuff from the same company.

> but ALL 100+ institutions are only evaluating / doing pilots

No... That's just not true. Cuallix isn't. Moneygram finished their initial pilot and is beginning its deployment to internal transfers, which could be folowed by deployment to everywhere else.

> I am very curious why there isn't a single big name that has put it's weight behind this for real production use.

Banco Santander: https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/31617/banco-santander-p...

How about a review of one that is marketed as anonymous or privacy-friendly? For example Monero or PIVX. Many people still incorrectly believe that Bitcoin transactions are anonymous (yes, I know they can be anonymous if you make an effort to make them anonymous, but by default they are not).

A review on siacoin would be great..

Great blog idea. I really enjoy how you are reviewing the hands-on user experience of working with a coin and chain.

Thanks! It takes quite a while to do it this way, but lets people scroll through and look at screenshots of the nightmare they will now hopefully avoid.

Nano is the first crypto I've been really excited about that's just a currency, and a hold quite a bit of it. Would love your opinion (or a post) on it. It's still fairly new and there hasn't been enough thought out criticism.

I love this idea, can I write some guest shitcoin reviews? :)

That could happen! Send me a Twitter DM, @abrkn

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.

> Why didn't you use a lightnode? Or the most recent exe?

It says why right in the article: "A blockchain client has to be open-source for the users to predict its behavior."

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.

The exe is likely built from open source code. Maybe someone modified the code to insert a back door before building? If you use precompiled binaries, you have to trust

* the maintainers of the project, who built the executable, and

* that the build process itself hasn't been compromised.

Since a selling point for cryptocurrencies in general is that it's a system that works without having to trust third parties, the argument being made is that it should be easy to build things from scratch.

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.

> No, you can peruse the code for yourself if you need to look for backdoors.

...and the conclusion that the source is back door free is only relevant if you then actually build the software yourself. You can only assume that the exe was built from the unmodified source code if you trust those who built it.

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?