I mean we don't make any claims of it never having been broken or being perfectly secure.
Good. You've got a $6 million marketcap, surely you can rub a few nickels together to hire some cryptanalysis. You all said you inherited a crud PoW implementation, so it behoves you to not play el cheapo on such a fundamental aspect of a crypto-coin.
Heck I haven't been paid a penny, and the PoW I did has extensive cryptanalysis. You better be ready!
Correct. I have contributed to both the XMR and BBR code.
And you are respected for that.
(For those watching from home confused about why I'm replying to a reply, I have AnonyMint on ignore; as you can probably tell from the tone of the comments, we seem to get along like baking soda and vinegar, and life is too short to let people waste your time.)
But this childish melodrama is pathetic. And reflects badly on the coin you say you are trying to help.
I was never attacking the valuable work you did on cleaning up the crud in the implementation of the PoW. I merely pointed out that a non-uniform and or non-random distribution on the lookups in the scratchpad can enable reduction of scratchpad. Since the default Crytonote PoW algorithm is supposedly random memory latency bound, then smaller memory footprint might mean moving into L2 cache which has significantly lower (faster) latency.