...
-The math and cryptography backing it isn't peer reviewed yet and in an infancy stage.
Fair, but I doubt that's going to matter all that much to people, assuming it gets even just a few months of successful operation under its belt.
I think it will matter at some point if indeed there is any bugs or exploits in its protocol. Why risk using technology that has not had years of review and testing done than something completely brand new?
I see more risk using something new that has just been developed and released and is not based on old cryptography.
If a DNM starts using Zerocoin, and it works fine for a few months, you really think people are gonna care all that much? It can gain a good deal of adoption without demonstrating rigorous academic robustness or decades of unbroken use.
I mean, yeah, people are not gonna dump their life savings into it, but a crypto-break, even for something with newish crypto, is probably a few notches down on the list of reasons why it'd be unwise to drop tons of wealth into the coin.
Yes I think people investing into such a system that had a flaw/exploit would care.
Yeah, but my point is that people are kinda lazy and if the thing works for a while, they'll assume (consciously or not) that it's probably fine. I'm not talking about known exploits.
Your presumption is that after a few months that ZC will be considered "safe".
First of all, I never said "safe". Just that after working for a while, people would tend to not worry about it.
Anyway, if the best argument against Zerocoin adoption vs Monero adoption in the privacy-coin niche is that ZC uses new crypto, then I'll have to rethink my opinions on how the alt-space will play out.