[ringaroundthetx]

> If you have the impression that serious cryptographers are knee deep in the problem space of trying to make sure cryptocurrencies are actually secure, revise your expectations.

Confidence in cryptocurrencies come from their ability to be patched.

Every death knell observation merely makes them stronger. People understood that in 2011 and acquired cryptocurrency, they understand that in 2017 and acquire cryptocurrency, they would prefer widespread self perpetuating ignorance continues while they acquire cryptocurrency.

[vertex-four]

The fact that people are buying cryptocurrency is not in itself evidence that cryptocurrency is cryptographically secure. Paying actual cryptographers to help create your cryptocurrency is evidence that it's cryptographically secure.

People use software that lies about how secure it is all the time - even when money is on the line - because they're not qualified to understand security, and additionally don't have the understanding of how to delegate that job of understanding. I'm interested in IOTA, but I've yet to see a respected security company put out a document that explains why it's secure and where potential weaknesses that we might be able to exploit in 5, 10, 20 years might be hiding, so I'm not touching it with a bargepole.

Put it this way: would you use a bank that didn't employ any security engineers and yet made grand statements about how secure its processes are?