How are masternodes 'centralised' ? They are just regular nodes performing an enhanced role. Any 'node' can perform a masternode function and there's not even a question of recourse to any central authority when setting one up - you just fire up your daemon, point it at a collateral address and thats it. I think what your alluding to is the fact that the mixing process bounces off a few nodes before it returns to your wallet but calling that 'centralised' is stretching it a bit. It isn't much different from the steps that lead to bits of a transaction ending up in change addresses in a regular QT wallet.

Like I said in the last post, attaining extreme levels of encryption just isn't the objective when it comes to money (at least IMO). Who gives a f*ck if your transactions are encrypted to kingdom come when you can't access half the service infrastructure in the industry because you had to build your own railway as well as the train since it had the wrong gauge.

Cryptonote fell at the very first hurdle on this one because they couldn't even get the most basic infrastructure of all - a useable wallet - off the ground. It was "farmed out to third parties" due to lack of development capacity.

Anonymity isn't just the money. Although I accept that cryptonote - as an encryption system - is a nice solution and notionally bullet proof, there's not much point in travelling by concorde for 50 miles when you've got to walk the next 10. The number of ways that a transaction can be 'de-anonymised' by means other than simply looking at the blockchain is immense (like simply 'buying something'   )


Liquidity isn't a question of how many coins are in circulation numerically, it's a question of how much monetary value there is across the entire coin supply. The coin with the most 'liquidity' is therefore the one with the highest marketcap, not the 'most coins'. Emission curves don't have jack to say about liquidity unless the valuation is there to support it.


You like using that word 'centralisation'. Thats one of the reasons I always find these assertions you guys make about Darkcoin so unconvincing. Call it 'centralisation' if you like, but service oriented networks are everywhere because there's not much you can do without them and anyway, in Darkcoin the client server relationship is mutual, just like in any other cryptocurrency. A 2-tier (or dual role) network where the nodes are diversified in function has nothing to do with the term "decentralisation" as commonly used in cryptocurrencies to mean lack of a central liquidity issuing authority.