> 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

> 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.