So yes, it's not just about the crypto...when the crypto works. But when the crypto is insecure, which is what tptacek is saying, then yes, it is ONLY about the crypto.
NB: I'm plenty qualified on UX and general technical matters, but on whether crypto is secure, I defer to the experts.
http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/02/another-upda...
My only point has been that Thomas, et. al. have been telling us we don't want something like TrueCrypt, despite the fact that we very clearly do. His suggestion of "just use PGP and FS level encryption" is absurd, but NOT from a crypto standpoint (I, like you, defer to Thomas and the other experts on the integrity of the crypto itself). It is, however, absurd from a UX/workflow standpoint.
They did not "only get their act together today". They've thought about Truecrypt far more rigorously than you have, and for far, far longer.
You've been almost completely unable to explain in technical terms what "UX" you want from sector-level crypto that you couldn't get from filesystem crypto. When pressed, you in effect say "yeah, well, name a tool that does that".
The fact that your only options today are [insecure, easy] and [secure, difficult] does not mean that there is no [secure, easy] option possible. But militating in favor of insecure crypto goes a long way towards hiding that possibility from everyone.
This isn't a pedantic point. Ross Ulbricht just got reamed in federal court because a simple physical arrest compromised virtually every secret he had. Why? Because he was relying on sector-level all-or-nothing crypto. By encouraging people to rely on tools like Truecrypt, you are, in a very small but real way, endangering them.
