And those Asian gaming machines might be running 64-bit and are newer hardware according to the steam survey I cited (and according to the sources I cited are available for 1000 computers for $15).
Gaming machines are certainly going to be newer than many light-usage home machines (web + email generally). I don't know what cafe machines are like.
I also think gaming machines are likely to be running newer software better maintained, less frequently used for random crap on the Internet (no time since the gamers are spending 20 hours a day gaming). So in general less likely to become part of a botnet. This does not mean that no gaming machines are part of botnets, but the number is likely quite small, relatively speaking.
If the number is not small, then why are GPU-mined coins allegedly not overrun by botnets, and the why is the problem of botnets attached to CPU-mined coins?
You ignored my main point which is the 50% attack but rather disproportionate concentration of the ownership of the coin.
I don't agree with it. I expect the fairly frictionless marketplace to sort out to more or less the same ownership as would otherwise exist. People who value the coin more will buy it, and the botnet owner
who already owns a valuable asset, the botnet will sell it for whatever he values most, giving him a return on his asset.
You don't like to entertain any possibilities that would cause you to make the conclusion that Monero is flawed.
I am pretty sure it is flawed. I don't care. Everything is flawed. If you mandate perfection, you spend years contemplating everything and delivering nothing.
I prefer to deliver something that
might work, and then see if it does. The world is complex and chaotic enough that I don't believe this is knowable without real world experience.
How much effort have you done to investigate the botnets?
How much effort have you applied to investigating my points about your proof-of-work?
None. As a volunteer I work on things that interest me. Neither of those interest me particularly.