Simple ethics. The NSA has a long history of providing covertly obtained information to brutal governments who then use that information to kill people who they have no legitimate business killing.
It is going on today throughout Africa and the Middle East. It isn't like some dark chapter from long ago history. If the NSA owns bitcoin and bitcoin becomes mainstream then a lot of political dissidents in a lot of countries will die.
Why do so many people use such dishonest tactics to promote the notion that sha is clean from possible manipulation by the NSA?
One concern is obviously being able to physically locate a person using bitcoin.
Another concern is being able to snatch their coins.
Honestly, for fucks sake, who would trust something designed and promoted by the NSA?
It's like asking Charles Manson to babysit. Actually Manson has probably mended his ways and might make a good babysitter. The NSA has not changed. It uses sneaky tricky shit to kill a lot of people through proxies in the 3rd world.
All of this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not SHA2 is "broken". Just like I could bring up your ideas about 9/11, but it's irrelevant to your belief that SHA2 is "broken." It might let some of the other people on the thread know what a waste of time it is to argue with you.
Most educated Americans, a vast majority, believe discreetly that neocons in the United States, along with a vague network of Zionists, were responsible for 911.
If you pick any well educated American and get him or her drunk enough they will admit it. But polls say most people aren't really sure.