Adam admitted that Bitcoin's fungibility model is fundamentally flawed and broken!

He mentioned some potential forthcoming research on zerocoin improvements but (in agreement with what I wrote upthread) that zerocoin was not practical now and probably not any time soon.

Adam explained that the 'mutable' option of Getblocktemplate allows pool miners to configure their own blocks thus claiming this reduces some centralization risk. However, mutable transaction blocks is not compatible with the oblivious shares fix for Share Withholding (Block Withholding) attack. Thus this feature can be defeated by those who want to force centralization. Rather my altcoin proposal is strong IP anonymity on by default which allows including the oblivious shares fix.

Adam claimed blind commits could help reduce centralization risks, but I found his argument to be flawed in several ways, some of which he admitted.

My analysis thus far is that "strong IP anonymity on by default" is a holistic solution with much fewer caveats.

Adam fears a strong altcoin because he said this will destroy the principle of limited supply of coins. I think he should accept a free market result, because a fundamental theorem of Coasian economics is that resisting the free market will only make a worse outcome later. I don't share his fear of an exploding supply of crypto-coins, because there are only a few (or maybe only one) design that can really be serious and overwhelming better. The market will recognize that the supply of truly better designs is limited.