Peter Todd's first Twitter post has been removed and all that is left is something less frank and open about his true views. Guess if you are being paid you should try not to say your clients crap is 'crap'.
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/507427225927708672I'm out of this shit. Far too much manipulation going on. It stinks to high heaven.
Monero :-/
Since you are quoting a 15 month post I suppose this has already been addressed, but Peter Todd was not paid by Monero.
We were talking to him about doing some review and perhaps other work but he decided against it because he wanted to stick to working on Bitcoin forks, as he explained here:
There was no "manipulation", he just changed his opinion as he learned more.
It means it would be so extensively modified to be almost unrecognizable by the time you were done.
Monero was just not a good fit for the type of work Peter wanted to do, which was to focus on working on coins that all use the same code base so his existing knowledge of the code would be valuable and provide synergies for him between projects. That's exactly what he told us.
+1
Each project you get yourself involved with is a significant mental overhead,
especially when what the codebase is doing is similar, but not 100% identical, to other codebases you work on. Even on Bitcoin itself I specialize on one specific aspect of it, the consensus critical code, and within that, the scripting system.
On the topic of the small amount of "C code", he said this:
I removed it because I meant to say "much of" - the Tweet as originally written gave the inaccurate impression that Cryptonote is written exclusively in C, which just isn't true. I removed it pretty quickly, within about an hour.
In fact the only part that is written in C are the crypto libraries, most of which probably came from other projects (though much the history is not visible to us).
Yup, which is a pretty serious problem because you need to be able to audit that those libraries were actually copied over correctly, are up to date, and actually do what they claim to do; sounds like there's even real reasons to suspect that the codebase may even have backdoors and other flaws deliberately added by the original CN team, let alone more prosaic flaws. While Bitcoin's use of OpenSSL had it's own set of problems, it did ensure that the huge C codebase of OpenSSL was at least the same huge C codebase everyone else used, flaws and all.
But again to be clear, like I've said elsewhere, these are all fixable problems and the Monero team is working on fixing them.
Which is exactly what has been done since. The unclear code was completely written and extensively commented (so much so that it regularly gets praise now from people who look at it work with it) and the code that was a copy of an external library (djb's crypto) was replaced with the actual library itself.
