>> even if CryptoCat has issues it's likely better, and easier to use, than other competing projects in this space based on its popularity?
Easier to use does not imply better in this space. In fact it may be worse than not providing a product at all because it encourages people to think they have a secure channel when in fact it's trivially breakable.
> wouldn't most be able to imply that, even if CryptoCat has issues it's likely better, and easier to use, than other competing projects in this space based on its popularity?
But in this case it's popular because it's easy to use than other systems and not because it's more secure than other systems.
I get there are many others ways to skin this... However the author is at least trying and providing. As a prior comment stated, there are a lot of very good people in the security/crypto/dev realm in this very thread that have provided some awesomely D-bagish feedback.