AltcoinUK is doing what he thinks is right and ethical. But he perhaps made some accusations which he could not prove (e.g. that you are anonymous). He does need to be more careful about fact checking.

Some of his points are correct. So I can't agree that his credibility is aweful.

AltcoinUK please be aware that CfB is taking advantage of your weaknesses, which is that you get inflamed and then you overstep from good/strong arguments to weaker or even unsupported/incorrect arguments.

It is difficultimpossible to omniscient. Please remember that the more one asserts, the more odds of being incorrect. I really push that limit. I assert so many things, yet I have reasonably good record of backing up my assertions in fact. And I don't push too aggressively on a vague issue such as CAP theorem applicability to Byzantine consensus.

I just don't think it is worth it for you to go on a vendetta against Iota. But again to each his own. I decided it wasn't worth it for me.

When I state Ethereum failed to solve the fundamental issue for scripting on a block chain, then I am stating a fact. I make sure I fact check. Upthread I hadn't fact checked Iota's signature scheme and so I was in error on the issue of quantum resistance.

Arguing that quantum resistance is not a feature that some people are interested in, is like arguing that females shouldn't like Beanie Babies. People like what they like. I am also interested in quantum resistance, as is the venerable Daniel Bernstein.