Comment by dijit a day ago
Same was true of Truecrypt.
After the core team disbanded there was a full security audit which uncovered some very minor issues.
People never really trusted Veracrypt though. Quite interesting how that turned out.
this presumes that anyone would trust bitlocker.
Being able to sniff a key as it transits a local bus is a very different kind of compromise of "trust" than believing that something is preemptively backdoored by a threat actor. It is deeply mysterious that Microsoft don't simply use TPM encrypted sessions to prevent this, though.
Bitlocker, LUKS and FileVault are the new standard(s).
Veracrypt is a curiousity, not beloved the way truecrypt was.
I’d love to see hard numbers for this, just my outside impression.
In fact, when trying to find old forums that I was part of during that era, I failed; and found only this: https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/why-people-still-believe...
Never heard of any credible reasons to distrust Veracrypt. Don't know who these "people" are either, none of the comments named anything more concrete than what sounds like online rumors.
IIRC there were a lot more options by the time of the Truecrypt-Veracrypt shift. Truecrypt was around when drive encryption was otherwise an expensive enterprise software thing, but I think Bitlocker was included with Pro versions of Windows by the time of Veracrypt so that probably became the easiest free option - and probably with better compatibility as well.