BCX, most people that are interested in crypto know absolutely nothing about the underlying technology. We can read white papers and nod our heads in agreement.... feigning a sliver of understanding, then those tiny bits of knowledge are deleted from all thought almost immediately. We are fundamentally helpless to evaluate the true stability and safety of any coin we own.
And thus the battles for public opinion. And even we developers aren't 100% sure which technological innovations are superior and must wait for the market and exploits to tell us.
Once the technological innovation settles down a bit, I and others can pursue education of laymen. I enjoy that actually. I used to tutor my engineering friends in college in physics, math, etc..
Right now we are so busy actually trying to innovate, do not have sufficient time to educate and we don't have sufficient unifying understanding to educate optimally. It is more a piecemeal process at this juncture.
The reason I say this, is because it is a waste of time for the crypto community and for individual investors to bother with coins that are flawed. They should be exploited and destroyed the moment they are proven vulnerable. Coins would be much more careful about launching, there would be a cost to launching a coin that is weak, today there is no such cost and the investor is left to simply gamble.
Killing innovation too early though also has a cost. And it appears to me BCX is too busy and was asked by his confidents to make a decision on XMR (and CN) and took his investigation only as far as finding the answer he wanted.
And doesn't interest him (economically) to expend more effort on it. Of he could be bluffing for some reason such as deciding he wants to be in XMR and thus wants to buy it cheaper.
Or he had a hunch and wanted to entice someone to do his work for him.
You have articulated my belief that a coin which has its act together on making laymen knowledgeable (in a non-confrontational manner) will have an advantage.
