People keep making these technical arguments. They are ignored. It is frustrating to have to keep pushing warnings and to have those warnings ignored.

> (1) the technical internals of Cryptocat from (2) the core idea behind Cryptocat and, especially, (3) Nadim himself, personally?

That sounds reasonable, except it's hard to do.

The internals of Cryptocat are closely tied to the core idea. People point out the flaws in the core ideas, and cryptocat team just say "point out an actual attack". So then people are forced to find bugs in the internals. And when they do CryptoCat patch, and say "See! Nothing to worry about!" Except that the core idea is still flawed.

People get exasperated playing this game of Whack-a-mole.

I get that Nadim is proud of his product, but his choices of promotion have caused friction, and his reaction to some of the criticism has made it worse.

Some people have mentioned that the crypto community is toxic. They're right, but there's also a high barrier to entry. When someone releases a product as secure, but has made very many obvious flaws that ruin the security of that product, they're going to attract a lot of flak. Don't forget that many people are not sincerely trying to learn about crypto and make it accessible. Many people are bodging together terrible software and selling it. There's a long history of debunking snake-oil.

It's unfortunate that Nadim has been subject to attack, but he should have known it was coming and presented the product differently.

> making Cryptocat better

It can never be made "good enough". That's the fundamental point.