If he thought 4.0.1 fixed it then maybe they could swallow a small segment of users on 4.0.0 making low entropy seeds hoping it would never become an issue.

So does this exonerate the other coinkite founder? Asking questions. Because if they tried to fix it then he wouldn't have exploited it. Unless this tranny knew that the fix they applied might appease most while he could still bide time to begin exploiting the fuck out of it...

No not at all. NVK and co are responsible, they knew. He clearly told Matt enough that Matt knew dice rolls protected users.

Fair point. Though to be fair to Matt. Idk. I think he trusted too much, but I don't think he intentionally missed. From what I saw in the clip, I don't think that's the mentality of a Bitcoiner, but it's also not the mentality of an intentional deceiver. You shouldn't just blindly recommend whatever the manufacturer tells you to say just to remain in his good graces. I think it was stupid to take NVK's request at face value. He should've pushed back or asked more questions. And should've been transparent from the get go. That could've ensured the big was caught sooner. But it's easy to fall in a kumbaya trap when number goes up and you think you're all in it together.

Why come to Matt's defense?