But no quantity of names would prove “every”, so what would the point be? You only need to point to one to disprove my point.
-
-
Replying to @nicksdjohnson @bodlandhodl and
But you can't name 5, and the fact that you refuse to do that and derail the convo supports my suspicion that "every" is just your wishful thinking.
2 replies 0 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @c___f___b @bodlandhodl and
Why 5? Why not 2? Or 200? My statement would still be true even if only one cryptographer had ever looked at IOTA, and found it wanting. Listing 5 wouldn’t prove anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nicksdjohnson @bodlandhodl and
OK, now it's obvious that it's very far from "every". Thank you for your time.
1 reply 0 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @c___f___b @bodlandhodl and
If you ever find a cryptographer who's crazy enough to give Iota a clean bill of health, do let us know.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @nicksdjohnson @c___f___b and
CyberCrypt, a team lead by Andrey Bogdanov who has developed the gold standard for lightweight cryptographic primitives Spongent and present. http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/~anbog/ Happy that your statement is now proven ignorant?
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @RichHegedus3 @nicksdjohnson and
He's auditing curl-p to my understanding, but results have not yet been released.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RichHegedus3 @bodlandhodl and
Can I use Emin Gin Sirer? He has not expressed sudden dislike. I'm not trying to prove anything besides the fact that using "every" is an ignorant statement in most cases
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
this instant classic comic strip represents *every* “respected” cryptographer who dislike/hate $IOTA. very legit and accurate 

pic.twitter.com/OS1GjHuLTd
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.