But I am not yet convinced that anyone has a model that can tell us there is no evidence of an attack.
"No evidence" (to me, at least) just means "no evidence". I also have no evidence that I have cancer, yet it is still possible that I have cancer, I just don't have evidence.
No evidence
for nor against (no medical exam), is different than no evidence
for (completed a medical exam). I am positing that we have the former in this case.
Programmers have these sort of very precise logic skills and demarcation of boundaries of logic (compartmentalization and orthogonality), otherwise bugs appear.Edit: in short, don't confuse lucky hubris with repeatable science though I suppose your argument is speculators operate with imperfect information and form probabilities.
What I said is that
CN will certainly be attacked in the future. Thus P("attack in any given day from now on") >> 0, and if P("BCX attack") is low enough, it does not make a meaningful contribution to the total propensity of attack, and, from a speculator's standpoint, is meaningless.
Speculators are interested in the total probability, and whether the price has over- or underreacted to its changes.
This is astute but only if BCX doesn't have a coin killer attack that can only be fixed by abandoning the anonymity, which seemed to be what he was implying initially (although we may have read too much into his statement and or he may have backed away from that interpretation). Again if it wasn't BCX and if he hadn't been able to predict I could find some potential flaw in the anonymity combined with some unprovable, dubious issue with the rings and private keys, then I would rate his probability of a coin killer to be very low. But...
I must say that I never considered your perspective because I am skeptical about Cryptonote having a long life span, which is a prerequisite for your mathematical point to be valid. I also assumed any successful attack on CN (especially any that exploited de-anonymization) would open the door for competing anonymity technologies but an attack isn't a prerequisite to my skepticism about CN's life span. See I am not calculating as an investor, rather as a technologist.
OTOH, I also considered the possibility that my suggestion for mitigation could make CN stronger. Thus I saw the potential outcome to be much more bimodal or dichotomous thus risky, than you do.
In short, you are calculating black swans (long-tail events) by being diversified, but you may not be reminding your followers of this.
XMR price is low atm, but imo it can mainly be attributed to overall weakness in all coins.
I also thought this. BCX seems to have little effect on the price, except for an initial panic perhaps to shake out weak hands.