Quote from: LemonAndFriesOne on February 24, 2017, 10:33:20 PM

Quote from: SteveoMB on February 24, 2017, 10:28:44 PM

Quote from: LemonAndFriesOne on February 24, 2017, 10:04:24 PM

Quote from: SatoNatomato on February 24, 2017, 12:35:58 PM

Quote from: LemonAndFriesOne on February 24, 2017, 04:01:56 AM

Be wary of IOTA, they don't like constructive criticism. Red flags are raised:

They dont take kindly on even asking how Iota is supposed to work.

However, they do spread bullshit about Byteball on here, and in their slack forum, they are originater of "Byteball is a blockchain and DAG hybrid" lie.

Iota action smell bad, like something is rotten.

The whole "we'll beat quantum computing" even is a bunch of bs. How can they beat something that can compute several states at the same time almost instantaneously with regular tech that still computes things one at a time? Sounds like they are spreading a bunch of hype to uninformed individuals.

I'm sure someone in their team is working under Ubuntu and somehow convinced their boss about this new fancy shmancy state of the art technology and the many moneys they will make.

The guy I bought some IOTA from said he was selling all of their coins because of internal conflicts with Come-from-Beyond and hinted that the initial investors have a hard time dealing with someone who doesn't want to discuss how the project even works. To the point that they were not allowed to question iota.

Like you said, smells of another BTC scam. What's new in the alt-world, same thing over and over again.

you guys don't wanna get a better image of IOTA. you just stick to your opinion. This looks to me like a conditioned opinion because this isn't about IOTA. this is about byteball or whatever you invested in instead.
everyone INCLUDING dom and david tried their best and talked to you guys to clear uncertain questions but you still come here to trigger everyone.
and I'm asking myself why.
is this just bottom-feeding or is this an honest scientific opinion based on facts?
because all I can see is an ever repeating trump-argumentation with phrases and neural diarrhea.
for the facts I'm willing to start an AmA. You may ask anything and I don't even give a shit about ad hominem. you insult, you ask, I answer anyway.
the first question I saw is "Is quantum-proof bullshit!?"
no.
Winternitz one time signature scheme enables the quantum resistance. here: this for example doesn't say quantum proof or immune, but resistance. and furthermore, that "Current research suggests, that the
security of hash-based signatures will not be significantly harmed by quantum computer supported
attacks [12]." Side 1, bottom. https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/191.pdf
It is about "pseudo randomization" and "key one-wayness" explained on side 4.
Source: "We begin by reviewing the standard definition of digital signature schemes and the security notion
existential unforgeability under adaptive chosen message attacks (EU-CMA) [11]. We then define
two security notions for function families required for our reduction. The first is the well known
pseudo-randomness property. The second is key one-wayness which states that it is hard to find
a key k such that the function fk maps a given input x to a given output y. We also state two
lemmas about these notions which will be useful for the reduction of W-OTS.
"
This is proven.
If you come up with further bullshit, Ill proof you wrong. gogo.
next question!

This sounds like a bunch of jargon trying to sway away from the real discussion.
Roll Eyes

Problem is you have underestimated users on BTCtalk and dismissed them as uneducated investors. Realize you are talking to individuals who are educated on the matter and have a descent understanding of how some of the tech works, stop trying to misdirect the original topic.

it's actually a quotation of a scientific journal, but as I can see, you lack the competence to understand it.
is my assumption correct, that you didnt read for yourself but just guessed that this is a scam, because you simply dont understand it? really?