Thus you can add the good transactions (from the bad fork) back to your good fork if you can untangle them. No blacklisting needed.
You can't do this unless you can identify the "good" from the "bad," which gets back to blacklisting. If the transactions don't reference outputs from the dead fork, then they are still valid. That will often be the case for coins with and without ring sigs, but not always. Certainly ring sigs don't automatically cause massive numbers of otherwise-unrelated transactions to suddenly depend on a rejected fork, especially if the fork is of limited duration. Granted there are slightly more dependencies, but that is quantitative difference not a qualitative one. Some recipients will simply be out of luck (due to double spending) and some will need to rely on the sender to resend (or not, it is really up to the sender). Again this is no different than other coins.
3. Non-Cryptonote coins do not have throw away 20% of the timestamp information upon difficulty adjustment. I know you think the vulnerability I have broad-sketched above is not sufficiently detailed to warrant any concern, but nevertheless this is a risk that doesn't exist in other coins.
More vague uncertainty and doubt without some sort of positive statement.
I have described a specific set of steps for an algorithm upthread.
I missed that. Please quote it or summarize it.
Nothing in life is entirely certain. There are degrees of contribution and certainty. Apparently you think my contribution on that is immaterial?
I think everyone intelligent knows your first two sentences, and everyone who is reading your posts know you believe it after the first 10 times you say it, which makes the 11+ times immaterial, yes.
I am not aware of it being disputed. How certain is that dispute you claim?
As you say, nothing in life is certain. I can say that before any of this started I reviewed what I could find about AUR and I could never figure out whether what BCX claimed to have done, or its claimed effect on AUR was actually true or not. I'm not claiming either, just that I don't know, and there are certainly people who claim it was not a real attack.
One thing I do I know is that, as you say, AUR was likely to be a pump and dump from the start, and where do pump-and-dumps end up with or without BCX? Same place. Or even if not a deliberate pump-and-dump, where are the other "country coins?" They all died on account of being a bad idea, not BCX.
You actually did this in describing the existence of stronger-than-MRL-0001 deanonymation attack (though not its scope and practical effect).
Oh I see you are recognizing that. Thanks.
Exactly, and this is not meant to personalize the issue with respect to you or anyone else or Monero or any other project. Specific, well-supported and well-presented contributions are more valued than vague ones. Always and everywhere.
It is very intuitive to me mathematically that you've got aliasing error in your difficult adjustment.
Show a specific example (or more general mathematical proof, but I'm guessing that proof-by-example might be easiest here).