[utnick]

If the crypto is broken, then break the crypto and collect the 200k.

Or if its vulnerable to a MITM, then explain how.

Or if its vulnerable to chosen plaintext/ciphertext or known plaintest, explain how.

There has been so much piling on of telegram, but nobody has actually proven any problems with their code or protocol. Meanwhile telegram is trying to do the right thing by being open source and taking the time to respond here and elsewhere to misconceptions and criticisms about them.

I really don't get the hostility towards them so far.

[girvo]

Well, the severe issues highlighted by better cryptographers than me (although I do understand why and how they are issues) show that the protocol can't be trusted. These issues have caused other protocols to be broken, so aeeinf similar issues again from the get go, coupled with heir marketing spiel means that it shouldn't be trusted.

Which is what it's about: cryptography is mostly about trust with a bit of math thrown in. If you can't trust that it won't be broken (see: all the issues 'moxie and 'tptaeck bring up for an example) then it shouldn't be used.

[MichaelGG]

People have pointed out their weaknesses. Telegram provides non-responses.

The crypto has problems, but they aren't exploitable under the very limited conditions set by their contest.

[cheald]

The contest is framed in such a way that the protocol's weaknesses aren't exposed to attack in the way that they would be in the wild.