What scaling problem exactly are you referring to here? ^
Bloat in particular. There was an attack exploiting this generation of bloated mixings and the response was to increase fees so as to make the attack less feasible.
Isn't this an "attacker economist" response to the problem of generating bloat from the mixing?
...
It gives an example of how the math and probabilities (keyword) of the level of mixing increasing decreases the probability an attacker would be able to successfully link addresses together on the monero block chain in a non-liner fashion.
In other words, the system is not 100% robust in itself. It is not designed to be 100% safe. It is designed with the assumption that someone doesn't have a lot of funds to sybil the shit out of the system.
In DJB's block post he states the following:
...
The "attacker will probably fail" approach. People taking this approach say things like this: "We're designing this system so that the cost of breaking it is larger than the resources available to the attacker."
...and this is precisely how sybil attacks are dealt with in Monero.
Monero is counting on the possibility that the resources of the attacker will not be sufficient to sybil attack and unmask those trying to be anonymous.