We appreciate the comment. Thank you for reading and engaging with our work.
Crypto’s Quantum Anxiety
To the extent there’s FUD, our intuition (and it’s not more than that) is that it’s IOTA’s/crypto’s FUD with respect to quantum. We talk about this in the article. There’s a Fear of quantum technology, there’s Uncertainty w/r to quantum computing, and there’s Doubt with respect to whether IOTA/crypto architectures will withstand attacks from quantum computers.
Some levels of FUD are healthy.
But the way some people appear to be dealing with quantum FUD (not only IOTA folks, but, again, more generally in crypto) is by overcompensating, making claims that are totally untenable (and, crucially, unnecessary). Ultimately, as this conversation makes clear, they only add unnecessary distractions and costs.
Crypto Binary/Adversarial Logics
As for the “binary” that we reference in our article (which by the way is constructive critique — NOT an attack, not FUD, not some market play — as we’ve bent over backwards to explain both here and on Reddit) — the binary logics refer to bigger picture conceptual battle maps: (1) the Tangle (whether centralized or localized) v. (2) attackers armed with quantum computers.
It’s the same binary logic underpinning Bitcoin and so many DLT/crypto projects: (1) honest nodes/nonces (again, centralized v. decentralized) v. (2) attacker nodes.
This part of our article is not critique, but more of an observation — “hmmm, of all the ways to end the Tangle whitepaper, why close on analysis of threats from quantum?” How deep does this binary framework, “us” v. “them,” extend? Is it necessary to IOTA’s success? Or do the costs of sticking with this outweigh any benefits.
CleanApp’s Critique Is Constructive & Qualified
Please keep in mind that we’re delving into this from our own unique vantage point, which is focused on holistic threat assessment, full-spectrum risk mitigation (including legal risk mitigation), and process design.
As we point out in the article, in our view, one of the best ways that IOTA can actually achieve functional (NOT algorithmic) quantum-proof-ness is by continuing to invest in use cases that highlight IOTA’s myriad material hyperutility propositions to an eager world. This means use cases that make it extremely easy for (a) regular people to tap into various Tangle processes and (b) earn crypto by doing socially useful work.
Doing this not only re-opens legal/regulatory runways, but steadily moves Tangle/IOTA processes towards classifications as critical infrastructure (not in formal terms, but, again, big picture — conceptually — how ordinary people will think of Tangle’s utility to their day-to-day lives).
Hyperutility Is Key To Long-term Security
The point above isn’t metaphorical.
That’s literally how IOTA is positioning itself: the backbone of the 21st century’s IoT transformation. This means hundreds of billions potentially enTangled IoT devices. So suggesting that at these scales, IOTA could legitimately expect to obtain functional/de facto “critical infrastructure” security protections from different public/private actors who are relying on the integrity of IOTA’s various Tangles — that’s not far-fetched. To us, in many ways, that’s just stating the obvious.
And, ultimately, those legal security guarantees are far more durable than just algorithmic resistance to quantum. That’s why we applaud IOTA’s proactive regulatory engagement efforts. They are as crucial to long term network security as everything the theorists, coders, and every other support process is doing.
Don’t Shoot Messengers!
How anything above, or in our article, or in our broader work output could be interpreted as sowing FUD is frankly beyond us.
We’re just a nonprofit trying to make the world a better place. It just so happens that secure, globally-deployed DLT platforms will allow us to bring our novel resource management processes to the world much sooner.
So we see a nice alignment of interests, where we can hopefully help lower a lot of unnecessary legal risk that DLT platforms are currently shouldering, and continue to assume (often unwittingly).
Less conceptual slippage = less risk = more resources to devote to material hyperutility use cases.
