> Crypto signature library written from scratch.

That's a sentence every white hat cryptography enthusiast loves to hear lol.

It's a very simple signature algorithm. They're welcome to try and crack it. If there is an issue with it, it shouldn't be hard to identify within those few hundred lines. Nobody found any issues in the last 5 years though.

Isn't it a good thing that there exists at least one blockchain in the world which isn't based on the same crypto library used by every other project? What if those handful of libraries have a backdoor? What if the narrative that "you shouldn't roll out your own crypto" is a psyop to get every project to depend on the same library in order to backdoor them all at once at some future date?

Strange how finance people always talk about hedging but in tech, nobody is hedging tech.

▲

Nevermark 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> What's wrong with hedging?

To be (an actual) hedge, something needs to be very solidly understood (by the purchaser), a very solid investment in its own right, and either reverse correlated or independently correlated specifically with a particular asset being hedged.

And not based on analysis of one "hedging" scenario, because both are going to be owned over a huge distribution of scenarios.

Probably the worst indicator of an investment being credible, is a promoter who has to stoop to the floor to ask "What's wrong with hedging?", as if that manipulative bon mot was ever in question, or was the relevant question.

If a motivated promoter can only make a very bad case, believe them.

And, if an "expert" attempts to get respect for their work from non-experts, instead of from other experts, there is something very wrong. Because the former makes no sense.

If you don't know how to get respect from experts, study more, and figure out how to trash what you have. Counterintuitive. But if you have anything original right, thats how to find it. Identify it. Purify it. And be in a better position to build again, with just a little more leverage, and repeat. Or communicate it clearly to someone qualified to judge it.

You won't have to persuade anyone.

If you have to persuade someone, either you don't have something, or you don't understand what you have well enough to properly identify and communicate it.

You have ambition. You have motivation. You have interest. You follow through and build. That is it. Don't stop. Ego derails ambition. Kill your darlings. Keep going.

▲

socketcluster an hour ago | parent [-]

Why would experts care about my product? There's no big money behind it. The big money has to come in first, then the experts come later to tell the big money whatever they want to hear. Maybe they want to hear the truth maybe not... Either way the paymaster always hears what they want.

Besides, I am an expert. I studied cryptography at university as part of my degree. I have 15 years of experience as a software engineer including 2 years leading a major part of a $300 million dollar cryptocurrency project which never got hacked... I know why the experts were not interested in my project and after careful analysis, I believe it has nothing to do with flaws in my work.

If anything, it might be because my project doesn't have enough flaws...

At this stage, I hope you're right. I hope I will find the flaws in my projects that I've been looking for after 5 years.

	▲	Nevermark 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You are leaving something out then. Which you allude to. Bravo on five years! I recently solved a problem that took me over 30. I originally thought, 3-5 months maybe, then 3-5 years, ... I am happy it didn't take 50. I have killed a lot of my own darlings. Well apparently you know what you are doing, I am sure you have something. I have found the best language models are great at attacking things. You may have already done that, but if not its worth a try. Free brutality.