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/507427225927708672
I'm out of this shit. Far too much manipulation going on. It stinks to high heaven.
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/507427225927708672
I'm out of this shit. Far too much manipulation going on. It stinks to high heaven.
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.
Anyway, code quality is a relative thing; consensus-critical code in cryptocoins needs to have very high standards to be safe and secure. In most cases something like this set of unittests for this code that I'm working on for another project would be considered pretty good, but in the context of consensus-critical I'd consider that code to be really rushed. It'll take a lot more documentation and testing before I'd be anywhere close to trusting it, as well as more thought towards how to make sure others can easily read the code. Even then I still have my doubts that the algorithm is worth the relatively high complexity and thus peer-review penalty compared to a more simple algorithm. (not to mention the language - Python - is kinda suspect due to typesafety issues) But I am on a deadline to get a prototype done, so it'll do for now.
