and how would you know anything about being difficult to work with in re: to Alan? have you worked with him? Alan has been a star in the community from a user's perspective as every other comment here and on Reddit will attest to. and Armory stands apart from bitsofproof and sx by far.
i'm willing to bet that anyone who's anything in Bitcoin and needs a usable daily wallet for their biz uses Armory. no question in my mind it's that useful.
it's quite possible that he's a lone wolf as you describe but many great ppl have ventured out on their own in many industries over time and accomplished great things. sometimes other ppl hold them back.
please be more specific. the only thing gmaxwell failed to explain to me, the rest of the community, and Sirius was why he assumed moral authority to exclude Ver and Matonis from the bitcoin.org press center. the verdict is in on that issue; it was the wrong thing to do.
I wish the fuckedcompany.com site didn't crash and lose its discussion forum database. I would then just give you a links to the history of the California/Silicon Valley and the dotcom bubble. Those who don't know the history are condemned to repeat it. But because f-----company.com is now lost it is quite hard to show that history to the uninitiated.
It kinda doesn't matter wheter I'm a dick or a nice guy. I'm a computer scientist and that that is the only thing that should matter. Everything else is just a dressing, "social capital", "marketing", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconnaissance_by_fire etc. But for you only things that matter are in the "everything else" category, you've already made a decision to not learn anything in the "computer science" category. One thing that you most definitely share with etotheipi is that you both are very emotional people, prone to thinking in the "us versus them" categories. But the subject here is cold and unemotional computer science, which really doesn't take sides.
i'm just calling it like i see based on your run ins with others. it's ok, i do the same thing. i would actually like to see links to your concerns about Armory. i vaguely recall some but not the specifics.
I will repeat myself: no matter what you and etotheipi think about me right now, I wish him well. I do see him repeating simple mistakes that already have been made, but the documentation of those mistakes is gone with f-----company.com . I have not deleted or significantly edited any posts that I had made in etotheipi's threads. Anyone is free to search my posts for the mention of etotheipi and etotheipi's post for mentions of 2112 and make his own mind.
mind you, i don't fully trust Armory yet either which is why i haven't kept the majority of funds in this wallet as of yet. but as far as i know, you're talking about security here and there has never been a stolen coin as a result of Armory. no one has lost coins either due to bad programming. it is a bit concerning that we had a 3 mo down time in Armory as a result of moving Alan's DB from RAM to HDD. he fully admits to underestimating the growth of Bitcoin and it's DB. but then so have you.
In the past, when I had to explain the above quoted concept to the non-scientists I had some success with using the following art analogy: imagine yourself having a choice to invest in Rembrand or Salvador Dali while they were still alive. Rembrand is well known for supervising painting by his pupils/apprentices and signing them only when they met his quality standards. On the other hand Salvador Dali is well known for signing the blank canvas and leaving painting to the random ghost-painters hired by the art merchants. It is completely unproductive do try to discuss which of the two painters was a better artist. What really matters to the investor is which one was better in the teamwork enterprise.
If you don't like painters analogy, try the film directors analogy with, say James Cameron and Michael Cimino.
But please remember that Bitcoin is not "art", although it may be used near the expressions like "state-of-the-art". Bitcoin (and its security) is cold and unemotional computer science.
one thing i'd like to point out to you is how wrong you've been on Bitcoin in general since you started here. you've been a bear criticizing the protocol since i first interacted with you back in 2011. you spend an awful amount of time here given your bearishness. why is that? i coined the phrase "the geeks fail to understand that which they hath created" a while back to describe folks like you. does the fact that you may now be describing Bitcoin as "state of the art" mean you've had a change of heart? not trying to be mean or anything, just pointing out the facts.