So I'd like to address some of the earlier posts.
First off, to those that felt it necessary to make puerile comments about me, ad hominem attacks weaken your premise. I understand it's hard to see the wood for the trees, but honestly, get over yourselves. You aren't beyond reproach (far from it), and all of you clearly lack the humility and wherewithal to know what you don't know. Shooting the messenger doesn't make you right, it just makes you ignorant. Stating that you are ignorant is not "FUD", it's a statement of fact, but the good news is that ignorance is a state you can escape from.
Now, it's important to understand why this "spork" nonsense is so fundamentally broken. I've seen arguments centred around the "many-eyes" principle of FOSS, and some based on deterministic builds (which is an idiotic argument, and completely misses the point, so I won't be addressing it).
I know that for many of you this is your first open-source project, and your first exposure to the development of security software of any kind, and so you may be unfamiliar with thinking adversarially. You may think that merely because a handful of others glance at the code that it magically makes it secure, but that is not the case. Open-source software i just at risk as closed-source software, except that you're not paying known entities to review the code. Neither approach is a magic bullet.
So how could a backdoor be hidden in the code? If you've ever seen the
International Obfuscated C Code Contest you'll know that it is reasonably trivial to make code nearly impossible to read and grok. But have you ever heard of the
Underhanded C Contest? If you're familiar with C then I encourage you to take a look at some of the past entries.
The long and the short of it is that it is not unheard of, or particularly difficult, for an obfuscated back door to be slipped into open-source code. But hey - this is a risk in Bitcoin and Monero and other cryptocurrencies, so Dash is fine, right??? Well...for currencies besides Dash the risk is somewhat reduced by the fact that the effects of such a backdoor can immediately be observed, whereas with Dash the "spork" model means that an exploit can be hidden away and only activated at a later stage, or the network can be remotely forked by anyone who holds the spork key.
My conversation with dEBRUYNE was neither secret (it was in a public channel) nor was it incorrect. If you can't understand the implications of what I said then it would behove you to discuss it with me, rather than insulting me.
Fluff...mate..."it's hard to see the wood for the trees"....mmm, yup, too true.
What's simply astounding (apart from your name) is just how many of you Monero people are completely and utterly unclear on what "money" is and what properties it needs to function properly in human society. You're all so consumed by the technobabble of crypto (and how Monero's technobabble is sooooo superior to everyone else's technobabble) you're completely unaware that when the serious investors finally come to crypto, it's not academic puritan crypto-nirvana-tech they're going to look at. It's the overall package of how a crypto currency has been built and whether its properties are aligned to 5000+ years of agreed principles on what makes money...money.
So rather than getting all twisted and upset, given you're here in the Dash thread and we're suffering from the constant buffoonary and shear mindlessnes of the dnaleor's of this world who are so so terribly threatened by Dash (and who are clearly so far out of their depth they're virtually walking around in a forest looking for a tree), why don't you elaborate for us on how Monero's monetary principle's are designed for ultimate acceptance by serious investors in the financial sphere? Start off with how an obscured blockchain facilitates XMR being a base-asset and society being able to trust the supposed monetary units of XMR when there's no way of confirming what amounts are sitting in specific addresses. Then move on to how the XMR blockchain can be verified and trusted.
