Quote from: Brilliantrocket on July 10, 2014, 12:15:03 AM

Quote from: digicoin on July 10, 2014, 12:12:39 AM

Quote from: Brilliantrocket on July 09, 2014, 11:15:31 PM

Quote from: surfer43 on July 09, 2014, 11:13:40 PM

Quote from: Brilliantrocket on July 09, 2014, 11:07:18 PM

In regards to Anonymint, when he speaks I would pay attention. He is at genius / near genius levels when it comes to cryptography and math. If he says it cannot scale, it cannot scale. The blockchain CANNOT be pruned anywhere near enough for it to be a practical, anonymous currency.

Can you support your claim that a large blockchain makes it not practical or anonymous?

With a 50% or more reduction in size, CrytoNote's blockchain bloat will be only slightly more than Bitcoin's blockchain bloat.

Certainly not right now. In 5 or more years, who can say.

OK 5 years? DRK security issues are much more urgent Wink

What people prefers:

+ XMR or BBR's blockchain is bloated. It is larger than Bitcoin's
+ DRK is insecure. Its technology is obsolete Wink

English as a second language or cognitive deficiency? Hmm, hard to tell. Either way, the idea behind a discussion board is for posts to be coherent.

You're sure posting a lot for someone who is confident in the superiority of a given technology.

Let's try to inject a little bit of reason into this discussion.

(1) As long as Moore's law continues, the bloat in the cryptonote family will be relatively inconsequential in comparison to the overhead in Bitcoin. Unlike others in this thread, I'm not going to make any claims of a 2x overhead, because I think that's incorrect. Let's call it a roughly 14x overhead.

At present, the Bitcoin blockchain is roughly 20GB, with most of that growth in the last two years.

That means that a roughly equivalent Cryptonote blockchain might be on the order of 380GB *if* CN became as popular as Bitcoin.

The key thing about that is that that's a size that can be stored on a commodity SSD today - which means that with continued growth, as long as Moore's law continues to bless us with density advances (in flash, HDD, or a future nonvolatile memory), we'll be able to fit the CN blockchain on a single commodity storage device for the forseeable future.

That's good. It's not great, and it should be improved, because it does mean that running a full cryptonote node requires dedicating some real hardware to it. But it's easy to engineer things so that the vast majority of the blockchain is stored only on HDD, for which 380GB is negligible even with today's 2-4TB disks, and uses on the order of 10GB of SSD to store the more active portions.

Is it trivial? No. Is it research? No; it's pretty well-understood engineering. And we've got a few years in which to get such a solution engineered.

380GB/year is roughly 1GB/day of data transfer. Again, that's a fair bit by today's standards, but keeps people under even Comcast's horrid monthly cap. Two or three years from now, it will remain fairly negligible.

But all that said, neither Bitcoin or any of its derivatives, or Cryptonote, is good enough. As others have noted, the need to split transactions into fixed-size pieces (as DRK's masternode approach does as well) is part of the cause of the bloat, and thus, one might reasonably expect DRK to suffer somewhere between Bitcoin and Cryptonote.

Conclusion: All of these systems are kind of OK for what they're doing today, and *all* of them need substantial improvements before they can become the de facto payment system.

You're welcome to bet that DRK will solve this before XMR - that's not something I'm qualified to judge. But please be honest that what you're really claiming here is a prediction about longer-term technical innovation, not the immediate state of the art with any of these currencies.

(2) You're ignoring the Boolberry improvements in ring signature trimming, which substantially reduce the longer-term size of the blockchain, and numerous other *substantive* improvements by both the XMR and BBR developers, when you claim that all they've done is fix a few trivial things in the pool code.

That's silly, and an easily falsifiable claim, and it makes you sound like you're being dishonest in pursuit of promoting your favorite coin. Don't do that. As a brief list of some of the improvements that have come post-BCN, consider:

  * GUI wallets [Several in beta for XMR, one released for BBR]. This is a much less trivial exercise than it is for Bitcoin clones, which can take advantage of the existing ecosystem to a greater degree.
  * Multiple exchanges support. Again, see above.
  * Progress on external review of cryptonote (from xmr)
  * Transaction auto-splitting addresses a major usability issue with cryptonote (XMR)
  * Ring signature trimming for blockchain compaction (BBR)
  * (Up for debate between bbr/xmr camps) out mixin count restrictions for increased long-term anonymity (BBR)
  * RPC-able wallet (XMR)
  * Deterministic wallets (XMR)
  * Addressing numerous robustness issues with dust attacks, networking bugs, etc. (both BBR & XMR)

It's up to you to decide whether these are "significant", but it behooves us all to keep the debate factual.