Note that this article simply shits all over Cryptocat without giving any concrete examples: "has had myriad errors in implementation" and "After being berated by dozens, repeatedly, because of the myriad flaws". I kept waiting for Paul to substantiate his criticism or at the very least link to some of the implementation flaws he keeps trumpeting, but he doesn't. Pointing out that Cryptocat has tried multiple encryption schemes isn't really evidence in itself, either.

For all I know this guy could be totally right about Cryptocat, but this is absolutely not the way to make this kind of statement. It isn't well-reasoned and it sure as shit isn't informative.