Meh, so now Vitalik feels threatened by Monero? I think we're winning guys!
I think you are right. From later in the comment thread (dga responding to VB):
VB:
IMO, correct mining algorithm ethics require you to disclose all information that you know about how to optimize a given algo implementation. But a looser standard is that you should not intentionally cripple an implementation that you release to the public.
From the evidence provided in the article, it seems as though Monero failed both tests, so it perhaps is indeed a premine scam. However, that is a grave accusation, and one that deserves giving the Monero devs a fair chance to respond.
dga:
This would be a very reasonable thing to assert if I had anything to do with Monero. I don't. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, none of the people who profited from early optimized Monero mining had
anything to do with crippling the code in the first place.
Think of it this way: You step in and inherit a legacy codebase for a promising and interesting new cryptocurrency. You're immediately beset with demands -- fix bugs, release binaries, answer help questions, etc. In retrospect, it turns out that the code you took over had been de-optimized by its original creators. Is that your fault? Of course not. What's the standard that we should hold the Monero developers to? To fix any bugs or deliberate weaknesses as fast as they can after they become aware of it. To get up to speed and review and understand the codebase they inherited as quickly
as a reasonable developer can do.
You're picking your words very carefully, so I suspect you know exactly what game you're playing trying to hint that Monero is a scam while being able to defensively say "well, I only said perhaps", but it's very transparent. And, personally, I find it mildly offensive that you're twisting what I wrote in the article and ignoring some of the substantive points.
I find it hard to understand how someone who just raised 30K BTC in an IPO can feel threatened by Monero enough to want to spread deceptive FUD about it, but that is the most reasonable interpretation.
I guess it is also possible he didn't actually read the post before making a deliberately provocative but ultimately stupid comment about it, and is now being defensive about his idiocy being called out.
