While it's surely not a problem for Monero, CoinDesk is actively avoiding reporting on it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=722532

I've otherwise enjoyed most of the reporting coming out of there, which is why I'm so disappointed by this. Please join me in emailing/tweeting them and asking for answers.

Whether you're a supporter of Monero (or cryptonote in general) or not, I hope that many of you see the importance of (relatively) unbiased journalism. It has become quite apparent that CoinDesk is all but refusing to acknowledge the existence of the tech, despite its recent explosion into the alt scene. CryptoNote is arguably one of the biggest innovations in the crypto space since BitCoin, and yet has hardly received a mention on CoinDesk, nevermind an explanation. Two months ago this lack of reporting seemed innocent and excusable, but now it's getting pretty ridiculous. I've commented on CoinDesk's blatant omissions in several relevant articles and every single time my comments were removed.

This post is not out of concern for Monero, as the currency is doing exceedingly well and will continue to grow whether CoinDesk chooses to acknowlege it or not. It is, however, a huge red flag to anyone who looks to CoinDesk for unbiased news reporting and updates on the general state of the crypto space. They've just lost a ton of respect and credibility.

I highly encourage those of you who use Twitter and care about the issue to call their asses out! @coindesk

That's the idea. Keep in mind there will always be a security/convenience trade-off when it comes to coin storage. But for casual non-investor types, I believe these solutions to be plenty suitable, assuming the provider is reputable.

Agreed. I think blockchain.info style wallets are pretty safe for everyday use and would make it a lot easier for people to use the currency, but I wouldn't depend on them for securing any significant amount of wealth.

Regarding accessibility, I'm actually working on a slick deterministic seed based web-wallet that could perhaps be integrated into monerochain.info if there's interest. My intention is to drastically lower the barrier of entry to using Monero without depending on the core devs polishing the client.

I don't like talking about work this early on, but I want people to know there are complimentary projects taking place outside the official github repo.

Whether BCN is a scam or not, I don't think it's in our best interest to discuss, especially on this thread (and considering BCN inspired the bitMonero fork).

It seems more than anything Bytecoin was a proof-of-concept implementation by some folks at Stanford that was never intended to be made public. Their intentions probably changed in early 2014 with the increased demand for anonymous cryptos. There's a strong possibility that the owners of BCN's github repo are not the original bytecoin devs.

What?! Please explain why it's safer to keep your XMR on an exchange rather than your own wallet.

Yet BC (with all its polish) already trades at a much lower volume than XMR. Pretty sad considering XMR doesn't even have a GUI yet. I guess that just shows how much those "Gen 2.0" features are really worth.

Agreed, and I realize it's a work in progress I wasn't suggesting that CoinJoin is anywhere close to CN tech. The point was that until these edge cases are dealt with, it doesn't really matter.

I'll assume you're just misinformed and not maliciously spreading false information.

Such as a certain 3-letter government agency? These are exactly the people we're trying to keep out. Otherwise we'd just stick to coin-join.

I would argue that the ability to "prove" your transaction is not hugely important. Such is the nature of cash. You probably wouldn't want to use cash to make public transactions, nor would you be inclined to use Monero.

We should focus on making XMR as untracable and unlinkable as we can (like cash), while continuing to improve usability, and worry less about these convenience features until the coin is more mature. I truly think it will be a mistake to try to make this a do-it-all, something-for-everybody currency.

For usability's sake, there should be a default ambiguity (that isn't zero. Maybe 1 or 2?). Setting specific levels of ambiguity should be an advanced or custom parameter that the average user shouldn't have to think about for common transactions.

The conclusion I was leading to is the same as yours. If bitcoin doesn't remedy the issue it will be abandoned long before such a situation manifests.  I was kicking this horse when bitMonero was still just an idea, and the community's anti-inflation paranoia gets in the way of implementing a solution that can really work.

Again, this is another technical consideration that grandma is not likely to understand. Who's the authority? Blockchain.info? or JP Morgan Chase? There is always the possibility that the masses will embrace the wrong authority and the blockchain becomes irrelevant (back to fiat we go).

My fear is they won't need an advantage if the easy credit/convenience factor is high enough. I already see this becoming a problem with visa/mastercard processing off-chain bitcoin transactions. The public will embrace the middle-men we originally sought to eliminate.

The point is, will the general public know the difference (or care)? In an adoption race the banks will win because people and businesses need credit, and the vast majority of the barrowers are not crypto anarchists trying to uproot the system.

Which part doesn't make sense? I'm comparing the difference between a direct tax and the increased supply of a valuable resource. The value cost is not identical in PoW crypto (though it might be in fiat as new money is created ex nihilo).

If it's "legal tender for all debts, public and private", and the interest rate is low enough, who wouldn't?

Right. I'm assuming PoW is present in both scenarios.