Quote from: HinnomTX on August 26, 2014, 03:38:09 PM

Quote from: stonehedge on August 26, 2014, 11:49:58 AM

My point is, if you're going to do an independent review...it must be totally independent. The banker friend was interested in DRK and did his research. He applied the same metrics that he applies to any investment in any emergent technology and DRK failed (or a least he is holding off buying) because of the way in which KA has been paid. That's a reminder that real world business standards need to be applied to alt coins if they are going to progress long term and attract new money.

There is no way to make a review such as this fair or independent. It's a de facto paid review, simple as that. KA's time and expertise are valuable. Even if the community converted the DRK donation to BTC before sending to KA, it would not change the nature of the review.
I welcome his findings. This is software, and DRK has a competent dev, so it's a good bet that any obvious security/anonymity flaws can be fixed. IMO, there's only one way to find out if your coin has real security. When the code is open sourced, hackers will try to attack the network with malicious clients. Then we'll know.

At least I am glad to see your banker friend did not sway you from continuing your pursuit of more DRK.

Very true, in the end, we are going to have to be tested in the "wild". And what doesn't kill us will make us stronger. I think the idea behind a code review is to fortify as much as possible before the barrage. But the barrage will come... must come.