> [...] the contest is fair because 1) the algorithm is completely specified, 2) there are no arbitrary definition of what winning means, and 3) the algorithm is public domain
Somewhat sad to see people on HN posting the Schneier link to counter the post without even bothering to read what it is about. I mean, it's almost like people have already formed opinions without giving the Telegram people a try. This is not how science works.
When Telegram showed their product on HN a few days ago, they were given constructive criticism and asked to justify the way they implemented their system. They responded by bragging about how many mathematics PHDs worked on the product.
Not satisfied at leaving it there, they then claimed that their crypto system doesn't need to be justified, because their customers aren't concerned about the specifics of their implementation of known broken algorithms.
Finally, they placed the burden of proof on the public, which doesn't work when it comes to cryptography.
They were given the opportunity to explain their design decisions in an environment of mutual respect, and they responded to this offer by stonewalling two of HN's resident security gurus.