>BTW, as you read the scenarios outlined below, I'm sure you'll be convinced that I'm criticizing some specific coin or project, except no two readers will agree on which coins. This post is not about The DAO or the-coin-which-cannot-be-named-or-else-they-conjure-a-butthurt-online-brigade and also no-not-that-one-the-other-one or even oh-my-god-they-all-do-that. It's about all of us. The entire set of scenarios are synthetic -- an amalgamation of Sorry-For-Your-Loss (SFYL) events I've seen play out in cryptocurrencies over the years. No need to make it personal, it already is.
It really wasn't intended to single out any specific project. All the "funny anecdotes" are real events that happened to me or to people I know, and now that I think about it, none of them involve Iota.
That's classy, trying to hijack the top comment to spread lies, ad hominems and smears.
>For example, he claimed in the announcement(1) for his Teechan payment channel scheme that it could do 2480 transactions per second, but neglected to mention that it achieved that by failing to actually write those transactions to disk and storing them in RAM only.
First of all, our actual deployments showed that Teechan can do more than 30,000 tx/sec across the Atlantic, in fully fault tolerant mode.
Second, the Teechan paper made clear exactly how we reported the initial, unoptimized numbers, which is precisely why you're here writing these bogus critiques.
>Emin's announcement and paper also gave the impression that payment channels weren't currently possible to implement on Bitcoin without segwit
We learned after publication that there are rumors of a "Lightning Network" implementation without Segwit. Unless you can point to a protocol specification, however, these remain unbacked and uncharacterized assertions, of the kind "I believe I can fly."
>Then there's how Emin's PR around that announcement presented Teechan as something that could be implemented right away as a replacement for segwit via Intel SGX, without mentioning that Intel required SGX users to get licenses to use it in production, and Teechan didn't have one.
This is HN, and I usually try to be more diplomatic, but this is stupid. First, Teechan is a protocol, it isn't tied to SGX. We are working with HSM vendors to deploy it on non-Intel hardware. Second, Teechan does NOT require the users to obtain licenses, it just needs to be signed by an entity. Third, Peter Todd has no idea about the nature and scope of academic work and how it differs from industrial deployments, which explains why he feels so threatened as to indulge in personal smears.
I could go on, but tearing down a known Bitcoin troll is pointless.
For the record: I have not walked back any criticism. I saw a brigade forming, and the last thing I want to be is the kind of person who, wittingly or unwittingly, creates a social media brigade. My own blog has been brigaded countless times, and I know how it feels. So do allow me to walk a nuanced line, if you will -- we're all better off if we can diffuse tension instead of getting entrenched in all out assault mode.
It really wasn't intended to single out any specific project. All the "funny anecdotes" are real events that happened to me or to people I know, and now that I think about it, none of them involve Iota.