Noah Ruderman is an engineer at Facebook and also is an advisor for Storecoin.
Reviews by Noah Ruderman
🔑 4 positive | 💩 5 negative
The problem is I don't think #xrp has a use case. Currently its intended use case is highly speculative. Yet unproven. Banks are still uninterested in the token #xrp, six years after #ripple was incorporated. Banks are not clueless.
2018-06-09 | Full Review
Biggest competitors for LTC and BCH? Stellar and Raiblocks. These coins were architected for payments that provide low / zero fees, high throughput, fast confirmation. They provide these solutions today and there are no hidden tricks like subsidizing transactions.
2018-01-01 | Full Review
IOTA is disputing this in part because - they lack a functional understanding of cryptography to the extent that they are taking the informal answers of security.stackexchange.com as rigorous definitions; - they lack any natural intuition about how to think about security, to the extent that they are rolling their own crypto and testing it on production systems without peer review; - and they lack the social skills to accurately interpret the more qualitative aspects of these textbook definitions such as what the word “negligible” means.
2018-03-04 | Full Review
I have a positive impression of the litecoin community, but I'm not optimistic about LTC's future.
2018-04-15 | Full Review
#nano is looking to be for cheap, simple payments. it's not trying to be maximally decentralized like #bitcoin. it's arguable that even if only data centers ran historical nodes, that #nano would be less centralized than #BTC, whose hash power is controlled by only a few pools.
2018-02-28 | Full Review
Monero is considered the gold-standard among private coins largely because it started with domain experts in privacy who took all the right steps in the formation and design choices for a private coin.
2017-10-01 | Full Review
Verge makes strong claims about their privacy that are not true. They make false claims about the privacy provided by legitimate projects for their own benefit. They make these false claims despite knowing that it could get someone hurt. It is clear that the team is marketing on false information for self-serving purposes. These are not honest intentions. They do not care about the safety and freedom of people who need privacy. They are claiming to fight for a cause they clearly don’t care about, and putting others at risk for financial gain.
2018-01-04 | Full Review