Quote from: elrippos friend on Today at 04:00:51 PM

Quote from: monero_badcaca on Today at 10:03:34 AM

Now what are you trying to tell us without any significant evidence Roll Eyes

Among other things, AES is broken!! Shocked

Quote from: nullius on Today at 10:33:21 PM

Quote from: https://monero-badcaca.net/faq.html

Do you think Vincent Rijmen exploded with anger when AES was broken? No, he congratulated the authors.

Say what!? When was AES broken? Roll Eyes

(Just a guess: If you are talking about related-key cryptanalysis, then you are mentally retarded and you know nothing about cryptography.)

I dearly wish that Monero were exactly as “broken” as AES!

badcaca is also demonstrably dishonest:

Quote from: nullius on Today at 10:33:21 PM

The monero-badcaca.net homepage prominently displays a cherry-picked out-of-context quote of fluffypony (Richard Spagni). That is dishonest! It casts fluffypony and Monero in a false light.

False light:

(archival snapshot)

The portion selectively quoted on the monero-badcaca.net homepage is hereby highlighted in light green; the important missing context is highlighted in yellow:

Quote from: https://www.coindesk.com/drugs-code-icos-moneros-long-road-blockchain-mainstream

Spagni told CoinDesk:

“I don’t care about the price increase, that shouldn’t be the thing that makes people interested. In terms of transactional growth, in new contributors, in transactions per day, those have far more meaning.”

[...]

Odd origins

But the journey to this point for monero is a long one.

[...]

Spagni said that he became interested in the “fair relaunch” of the network called BitMonero, which was later forked away from its lead developer in April 2014, again under suspicious of improprieties.

Yet, at the time, even he notes that his intentions weren’t entirely altruistic.

“I thought, ‘I’m going to pump it and dump it,’ because I was interested and taking the ideas and implementing them in bitcoin. The bitcoin code base was far more interesting to me than monero, and I thought, ‘I’m not going to work on this codebase, it’s terrible,'” he recalls.

Changing course

After of all this, however, monero miraculously emerged, growing slowly over time into a project that’s now one of the more reputable in the field, despite use cases that may be unsavory to some.

The credit lies with how monero’s team made adjustments along the way.

[...]

Spagni largely credits the movement on the development front to cultural differences, and the fact that monero adopted a development process where any contribution that isn’t “dumb or obviously bad” is added to the code base.

“Because of that open structure, we have had people pitch up and people work on it, sometimes they’re there for a few weeks, sometimes they’re there for three years,” he said.

There’s an attitude difference as well, in that the project has a bleacher-seat distaste for vested interests.

“I think there’s a lot of respect from the wider audience because we don’t make decisions based on stakeholders interested in short or long-term profit,” he said, adding:

“We’re getting that social capital because we hacked away at stuff and aren’t idiots, I can’t think of another reason.”

I tried to be fair, for I am serious about this:

Quote from: nullius on Today at 10:33:21 PM

I should preface this by noting that I myself have been known to make moderately deprecating remarks about Monero’s practical security. For example, I do think that the Monero community is underestimating the practical threat from CipherTrace. I also use Monero sometimes—with careful coin control in the CLI wallet. Thus, I am quite interested in seeing actual evidence of weaknesses that can be exploited in practice.

However, unless badcaca coughs up something credible, I must conclude that I should avoid wasting more time here:

Quote from: nullius on Today at 10:33:21 PM

For this to be treated as anything more than noise, it needs to be presented with more than noise. [...] badcaca, I will NOT hereby claim that you can’t do what you say you are doing. You don’t even provide up front sufficient information to evaluate such a question! That, in itself, is reason to write this off as “probably just dumb FUD”.