(I'm not saying it isn't, just that you can't assume it.)
If it were my coin, I would think I should not assume it.
I assume nothing. I suggest that you can't assume that mitigation is required (which you suggested it was, unconditionally, in the previous message) if you want to take the analysis beyond "there might be a flaw."
I got the point. You guys have other priorities
True
and you wish everybody would STFU already unless they can do most of the work.
False.
I don't care whether anyone SsTFU but as I said if you want your message to be heard by anyone looking at things at a technical level it has to be presented with more precision and detail to rise above the normal noise level of worthless FUD. That is not "most of the work" it is simply presenting your ideas (which could well be valuable even if they represent only a small part of "the work") in the way that technically, scientifically, or mathematically competent people communicate.