Clif, if you read some code that purported to be the open source code of an application, how would you know that this code IS the code used -- if ever it was, how would you know it had not been revised? I believe that "open source code" ONLY means you may copy the code and compile and run it yourself if you wish. I do NOT believe that if I am told the code for some application is "open source code" that this at all is any assurance of integrity or security.
While one cannot prove there are back doors in code unless doing extensive analysis and testing, one cannot prove the contrary either without a similar effort.
After reviewing NUMEROUS articles in which the author of a major antiviral software used back doors to collect evidence, and then released volumes of said evidence, I think it is reasonable to suspect any and all software as having back doors so long as there is a profit motive for using them.
Consequently, I take issue with any claim that the process and systems associated with cryptocurrencies are secure, and I think if you said, "I want to audit your systems and software that you CLAIM are open source" you would get nothing in reply but LAUGHTER.
In short, any claim that cryptocurrencies are trustworthy is BS.
The dumbest assertion is that there is a back door to Bitcoin. If someone had first-hand knowledge then they could simply post the code block on a Bitcoin forum and the developers would remove it right away. Supposedly two "inflation" bugs have been discovered and fixed.
Contrast that to any "gold backed" currency which is one giant back door for the criminals who issue it. The oldest con in world history. If you personally don't have access to the bullion vault, all you have are pieces of paper or blips on a screen. In 6000 years, the story never changes. Until Bitcoin came along.
cryptos & code
Clif, if you read some code that purported to be the open source code of an application, how would you know that this code IS the code used -- if ever it was, how would you know it had not been revised? I believe that "open source code" ONLY means you may copy the code and compile and run it yourself if you wish. I do NOT believe that if I am told the code for some application is "open source code" that this at all is any assurance of integrity or security.
While one cannot prove there are back doors in code unless doing extensive analysis and testing, one cannot prove the contrary either without a similar effort.
After reviewing NUMEROUS articles in which the author of a major antiviral software used back doors to collect evidence, and then released volumes of said evidence, I think it is reasonable to suspect any and all software as having back doors so long as there is a profit motive for using them.
Consequently, I take issue with any claim that the process and systems associated with cryptocurrencies are secure, and I think if you said, "I want to audit your systems and software that you CLAIM are open source" you would get nothing in reply but LAUGHTER.
In short, any claim that cryptocurrencies are trustworthy is BS.
The dumbest assertion is that there is a back door to Bitcoin. If someone had first-hand knowledge then they could simply post the code block on a Bitcoin forum and the developers would remove it right away. Supposedly two "inflation" bugs have been discovered and fixed.
Contrast that to any "gold backed" currency which is one giant back door for the criminals who issue it. The oldest con in world history. If you personally don't have access to the bullion vault, all you have are pieces of paper or blips on a screen. In 6000 years, the story never changes. Until Bitcoin came along.