Darkota, Gmaxwell was referring to the original implementation of Coinjoin. Darkcoin made significant improvements. Also, the data that moves between masternodes will be encrypted, making Darksend trustless. The instamine is inconsequential when it comes to adoption. In the end, Darkcoin is a far more practical solution for privacy.
Monero is now growing at only double Bitcoin's weekly mb chain additions, so Monero is perfectly practical even without the GUI (Which is coming).
Also the masternodes being encrypted does not solve the issue that the nodes can record what they are doing.
I have to ask, do you even know what you are talking about? Because: "
Also, the data that moves between masternodes will be encrypted, making Darksend trustless" shows that you are completely mistaken. The encryption has nothing to do with making the transactions trustless, they are already trustless, that is the point of coinjoin, go back and read the original coinjoin concept and see trustless in the first post.
The trustless joining of transactions has nothing to do with requiring encryption. And this still doesn't solve the issue where a masternode can simply record it's in's and out's and thus un-anonymising the transactions.
I don't think we should get complacent about strategies to both reduce the size of the Cryptonote blockchains and more efficiently swap old parts to disk without needing the full chain to be resident in memory.
Reason: The transaction volume of BTC is perhaps a
little bit higher than that of XMR.
BTC: 50-70,000 tx/day https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions
XMR: under 2,000 tx/day http://monerochain.info/charts/transactions
It's not a problem when nobody's using the currency for anything except trading, but that's not the desired endpoint. The desired endpoint is more Tx than bitcoin -- and now is a good time to start engineering to handle that. Bitcoin itself is no paragon of transaction scalability as it stands, if you think the cool goal for cryptocurrencies would be to dethrone, e.g., Visa.