Since facts are important:
1. Yes version 1.4 is not out yet. So what? Fact is that several features planned for 1.4 were pulled into 1.3.5 AHEAD of schedule! As a result, 1.4 was pushed back to end of month. In my book, this is sound product release management.
2. A number of other projects have been using the code without crediting XSPEC (look at the wallet of TokenPay for instance). So just making small, interim commits goes counter to any business rational.
3. What counts in the dev is what he delivers. And the dev has devs have deliverd technically speaking a quite spectacular product. So whether he says he's the King of Persia or an alien from outerspace, is irrelevant. The output is what counts.
You are totally right in your 3rd point, and that's one of the reason why I wrote the original post. One of the thing I am challenging about this project, that smells quite a lot in my personal opinion, is that the amount of work publicly produced does not justify 2 developers working full time. Have you got an idea of what 2 developers can produce in a full time week of work? In my opinion it's just another lie jpg is saying around (i.e. Bryce does not exist, he's not working full time on XSPEC), like his years of development experience.
On your first point, jbg said more than once that he would have put 1.4 public, and he has not. This means the code is publicly visible, but not released. It takes 2 seconds to do this (put the code in a separate public branch), and it would clear a lot doubts. Why he has promise to do this and he has not, even though it takes 2 seconds? I have my opinion on this
Also in my opinion releasing 1.4 will not be enough, you need to check if it contains the amount of work jbg has said it has, which need to justify months of development which cannot be seen happening in github between Jun/Feb. What happened from June to November and in February? From github almost nothing. Where are the proofs that he's actually delivering? Creating a release with a few code changes or library updates does not mean he's delivering. From what is publicly available on github, he's not delivering much.
Using the number of commits on github as a metric for the work performed is spurious. Also, that's easy to game, by just making some updates to some comments. Instead, compare what has been delivered between releases. So far, the releases have delivered consistently important and fundamental changes, and they have been robust. Isn't that what counts?
Given the noticable changes between releases, and comparing it with the changes that other products deliver in a similar timeframe with even a larger developer base, your argument that the development does not represent the output of two developers is simply not tennable.
You also seem to confuse this project which is driven by privacy enthusiasts and a great, devoted and convinced community that together produces a superior product, with a project that is purely business driven with a large funding behind it. When SpectreCoin is able to hire an army of devs, pay them hundreds of thousands per year then you will certainly need transparent and strong governance.
And even if you were right (and I strongly argue you are not) that the two devs are not pulling their weight, then they are truly geniuses who with "just a few code changes" or "library updates" as you claim, are managing to create a cryptocurrency that has technicaly features which rival (and surpass) some of the best known and best funded coins out there.
