- No known solution for scaling for mainstream adoption. For bitcoin based coins there is mini-blockchain.
Incase you haven't noticed, Monero's blockchain is only twice as big as Bitcoin's, and even that will be Cut, as Boolberrie's was. Most people will run Light Clients(Like Bitcoin's Multibit), so they don't even have to download the whole blockchain.
Twice as big, with 1/100th of transactions. And, incase you didn't notice, I said "mainstream adoption".
- CN transactions can be Sybil attacked, so that you'd be mixing mostly with adversary's own generated transactions.
This isn't even true. "You might ask, if it's impossible to determine which outputs are being spent, how can double-spending by prevented? CryptoNote solves this using a special ring signature algorithm (which is a modified version of existing signatures, so this is original cryptography and their security proof should be scrutinized fortunately it is not too complicated) in which the real signing key has a key image associated to it, which must be published alongside the signature. This key image cannot be reversed to get the original key and deanonymize the sender, but if a double-spend is attempted, users will see that the same key image is used twice and reject the second attempt."
Please read up on how Cryptonote Ring Signatures work, thanks.Strange, that you (or anyone else for that matter) didn't say anything when Anonymint made the same claim in XMR thread. Are you suggesting that Anonymint should also "read up on how Cryptonote Ring Signatures work"?
- The planned I2P implementation is susceptible to timing analysis.
LOLLL, only the NSA can do that. You're just copying what Anonymint said, Timing Anaylsis is the Only way to try and circumvent Ring Signatures, and it's only possible by the NSA.
Yes, NSA can do that. So why go through all that trouble creating a new crypto coin from scratch if even then your anonymity won't be NSA proof?
AlexGR, what are you talking about? Monero is currently 2:1 size wise, growing less than twice the rate of Bitcoin.
You're trying too hard here, your bias is obvious.
Don't you understand that growing 2:1 with virtually no tx's compared to BTC (100-1000tx per block) is a problem?
Most of the current growth is due to empty one-minute blocks, which is not inherent in the design at all, and can (and probably should) be changed to a slower block target. For example, as I write this 5 out of the previous 6 blocks are all empty:
123047 2 minutes ago 468 1 4521dc5d9db1c40882b8274efa7f9454e0c16c6def50559c72e26b57e5ef1374
123046 3 minutes ago 332 1 2a759d05a824a4c728aa26e65bc7cb9eaa5280925e1943dbb6512987c3cfc34e
123045 3 minutes ago 332 1 089680af1f6eaa1b1f92e9bbefb8a7e954101f2fec80cd62928c0c83301ea20c
123044 3 minutes ago 332 1 9904d04d7932622881de262fa2e54f3792b9a108333a9e0359418f4928071991
123043 3 minutes ago 332 1 b19f5d4c871ab16e5fbd98ad59ddffdedb43ee3ee3b365179bbbdef5e9901da2
123042 4 minutes ago 332 1 72de4622a8d5ee808069de7a82c0791a919ae7e495eda6a0508b2954caf20251
Very little of the actual current growth is due to the size of ring signatures. Increased usage will cause sub-linear incremental growth because the first thing that will happen is that empty blocks will have transactions added to them (reducing chain overhead from 100% to <100%) and the next thing that will happen is that block headers will be amortized over a larger number of transactions.
In some hypothetical future if XMR has transaction volume that is comparable to BTC, its block chain will be several times larger since its transactions are larger. If that happens, the market will have accepted that a constant factor (very likely <10x) of increased chain size is an acceptable trade off for increased privacy of transactions on the chain. I see no way to objectively predict whether that will happen.