Now you're putting words in my mouth. I did indeed say MTProto 2 was based on standard primitives and no one has publicly claimed it insecure or vulnerable. I did not say to trust MTProto 2 any more than you would trust the Signal Protocol: that is given the information we have on known vulnerabilities one appears about as good as the other.
“You are welcome to develop your argument and point out where in MTProto 2 you find fault or why using standard crypto primitives isn't enough and what you'd like to see from MTProto 2 to secure it in your mind.”
The only person putting words in someone’s mouth is you - I never compared MTProto 2 to signal. You keep claiming that you never said MTProto 2 is more secure than signal. I never said you did.
The idea that being based on standard primitives is enough is a commonly held but dangerous piece of cryptographic reasoning.
> You claimed that the reason to trust MTProto 2 because it is based on standard primitives and because no security research had yet found a bug.
Those are the words you put in my mouth. I don't trust MTProto 2. When did I say that I trusted MTProto 2?
This whole argument was me putting bad research to shame and then challenging another user not you to develop their argument.
But you wanted to back them up with something about concentrated efforts from serious adversaries which is an impossible argument to refute because neither of us has the insider knowledge to know what these protocols have endured and survived since only knowledge of their successful exploitation would be on the menu for public consumption.
So please, do bring something of greater meat to the table if you have something to share.
I was responding to that, and only that, because it an invalid security argument, and irrelevant to the ‘admonishment’ of the other commenter.
The 100k bounty is a somewhat better argument. It would have been far more helpful to lead with that.