[asddddd]

Most likely it's that the majority of experienced crypto devs (aka people who have been around since it was "fork bitcoin and change PoW algo + logo") will be familiar with C++, so a Java implementation is an odd choice that strongly hints that it was written by a lowest-cost contractor - or at least someone unfamiliar with cryptos. Since there is an awful lot of trust in devs to provide future support/improvement, both are bad.

(Lot of "write my dumbass cryptocurrency" requests on Upwork, so I assume this is very common.)

As for technical superiority, maintaining consensus is critically important. If one set of users (miners) requires a high-performance implementation, it makes a lot of sense to use that implementation everywhere.

[seanwilson]

> Most likely it's that the majority of experienced crypto devs (aka people who have been around since it was "fork bitcoin and change PoW algo + logo") will be familiar with C++, so a Java implementation is an odd choice that strongly hints that it was written by a lowest-cost contractor

If you're an experienced developer writing a new cryptocurrency that's radically different from Bitcoin, why would you want to fork from Bitcoin and why would you find Java code harder to make safer than C++ code?

[asddddd]

It's an explanation of why a Java client would be suspect as an "investor" - experienced dev teams don't release them. Most of these projects are primarily marketing ventures ("look, we're the next Ethereum!"), a lot of code is outsourced, and the average "investor" expects a handwavy explanation of how it's The Future with lots of big words that that they trust is correct. Making odd/different choices (DIY crypto, Java reference implementation) hurts that idea.