Is there anyone that does not believe using purposefully broken crypto (that may or may not have been written by an AI, LOL), in order to create a backdoor in the code is stupid and antithetical to the ideals of open source?
I find it really odd that these people continue to make this claim and pretend it's okay to do this. It's not.
And if this guy honestly believes he can argue cryptanalysis with MIT, well.
It's not MIT, it's a group that uses the MIT banner to fool idiots like you into making a logical fallacy--IE using authority instead actual facts or solid argumentation. The same tactic was used to attack Monero. You should probably put in some time researching. You can start with ComeFromBeyond's response, then you can move onto autonomous vehicles and other things that are just a google search away.
I read the response. There's nothing to research, it's a bunch of handwaving, none of which actually addresses the real issues brought up by real cryptographers.
It's astonishing to me iota maintains this rabid cult following, because there's literally nothing to back up anything they claim.
Talk about hand wavey--the guy invents POS and you think he's the one whose credentials should be checked?
IOTA has mathmeticians on hand as well, so much for you research (are you ever gone to bother to fact check?)
http://untangled.world/iota-founders/Feel free to bring up any concerns on stack exchange, you won't even need to use math.
https://iota.stackexchange.com/Inventing POS doesn't mean you're qualified to let an AI make up a hash function to use in cryptocurrency. A broken one, at that, and one you know is broken and use anyway.