Quote from: fluffypony on August 19, 2014, 05:44:10 PM

Quote from: btc-mike on August 19, 2014, 04:47:39 PM

Unconscionable? The way you over react to anything negative (real or perceived) about your adopted cryptocurrency bemuses me.

Michael, I did not create the CryptoNight PoW, nor am I particularly attached to it. I am, however, against blatant incorrectness in a technical document, and would be just as vehement if the incorrectness were about scrypt. This is not the first time I've reacted this way - in this very forum I've passionately argued against incorrectness in all manner of "whitepapers" dished out by "developers" regardless of whether or not it relates to something I'm involved in.

That you feel the need to pop your head in and pass a smug and arrogant comment is not unsurprising, but it would behove you to tread carefully, as such behaviour reflects extremely poorly on the cryptocurrency you represent.

Quote from: aminorex on August 19, 2014, 05:02:53 PM

Come now, let's nip the antagonism in the bud. The "unconscionable" word was a bit...insensitive...but not worth starting a feud. BBR and XMR should be able to cooperate well, to mutual benefit, and overblown rhetoric won't help either. Oil on the water, please. (And no smoking.)

I stand by the turn of phrase I used. Lying, or misrepresenting a fact that he should know, in a formal technical document is unconscionable. In fact, I agree with everything else he said about the algorithm, but that entire last sentence is unnecessary and disingenuous. I'd expect something like this from a Newsweek reporter, but not from somebody who obviously understands the facts of the matter and is writing a technical document. If it was a developer working for me they would be in a disciplinary hearing, but spending a few years C-level at a listed company has maybe made me overly demanding.

I do not claim or pretend to be a dispassionate person.

Deep breaths. The phrasing in the whitepaper could be very easily attributable to a difference in phrasing due to Zoidberg not being a native speaker of English.

I, for one, *didn't* read it in the way you're choosing to interpret it, but we're both probably reading our own preferred meanings into it ("Protect from" meaning "to prevent being utterly destroyed by ASICs" vs "prevent ASICs from existing").

It seems very reasonable to request a rephrase, and you've done so, and I hope C_Z will be responsive to that to eliminate any ambiguity, but calling this "unconscionable" is creating an impressive mountain out of what should otherwise be a relatively small difference in interpretation of one sentence.

I suggest we give him some space to fix it, and move on to actual issues of substance.

Re Cuckoo Cycle, as an embedded follow-up: I hope to do one more round of attacks against CC before I declare myself out of ideas. I'll update my document about it when I have a chance. I think we're getting closer to actually understanding it.