I am 80% certain that this cultural stance is going to be why XMR is beaten by another effort that understands better how to spur innovation by not suppressing or expecting a Cathedral style of progression.
The cultural stance is not significantly distinguished from the range of cultures I've seen on other open source projects on which and with which I've worked, which is quite a few.
Your characterization of it as a cathedral is straw man.
Perhaps it is a cathedral compared to your internal mental model of what constitutes bazzaar-style development, but by the standards of reality it is not.
You are equating the ability for a user to wait for say 6 confirmations to have a mathematically quantifiable probability of assurance, with the risk of a coin vulnerability allowing spends of any age to be double-spent (reverting a spend is double-spending).
No, I'm saying that any recipient of any coin is vulnerable to a chain fork that removes the transaction they received. This is mitigated by a judgement of the recipient that they have waited "long enough" for such a chain fork to become unlikely. I said nothing about 6 confirms. In practice recipients make their own judgement about number of confirms. In Bitcoin many use less, and in altcoins many require far more. In all cases there is likely some sort implicit or explicit fraud scoring, but that is really none of my business and is up to the recipients to sort out. Ring signatures do nothing to change this except what they are intended to do (inhibit tracing, and thus indirectly blacklisting), and nothing here is remotely specific to Monero.
Thus he is factually stating any relevance to BCX is unproven and not obvious. He is not saying there is no possible relevance, although I am assuming he thinks the probability is exceedingly small thus the onus on someone other than them to prove it is relevant.
Not exactly.I'm saying that useful contributions take the form of actual math or code. "There might be a flaw" is FUD almost by definition.