To the contrary, we've been far more respectful and accommodating to the Bitcoin fringe than merited, and certainly far more than the other way around. After all, we took a fair amount of abuse for simply pointing out an objective weakness that is part of the protocol. This, despite the fact that we proposed a fix for it.
Perhaps you've not read our final paper. It doesn't just footnote, but actually cites the prior discussion.
And anyone who reads the previous discussion can see that our paper:
* shows a more extensive attack than the one described there, one that works,
* performs a full analysis of the revenue to be obtained from that attack, and characterizes that revenue as a function of attacking pool size and attacking pool's ability to control information flow in the network,
* shows that Bitcoin is not incentive-compatible,
* shows that, even under the best of circumstances (i.e. the attacker has terrible network connectivity, no Sybils, no control over information propagation and loses to the honest miners every single time), defending against the attacker requires at least 2/3rds of the network to be honest.
Perhaps the biggest giveaway that we did something differently is that THE BITCOIN TALK FORUMS CONCLUDED THAT THEIR ATTACK WOULD NOT WORK, WHEREAS WE SHOWED THAT OURS WOULD.
You're making things up when you imply that we're claiming that 51% is an "unsurvivable crisis." To the contrary, the article very clearly says that the Bitcoin economy remains unaffected, and that the Bitcoin price is also unaffected.
We have been trying to improve the Bitcoin system since day 1. I realize that you're part of the original brigade, and that also explains your ad hominems here. I urge you to elevate the discussion.