Quote from: KimmyF on September 11, 2014, 06:23:00 PM

Quote from: cryptico on September 11, 2014, 06:19:25 PM

Quote from: synechist on September 11, 2014, 06:05:55 PM

Quote from: CryptoGretzky on September 11, 2014, 05:53:21 PM

But... The need to run like 100 to 200 or more wallets... Omg... The number of VM that's needed is insane.

I am just saying if you have inputs that are 1000 XC that it's automatically treated as one xmixer since the mixing is based on UTXO unspent output anyway.

Indeed, that amount of VM would be hectic.

I wonder if this will be possible... mixing involves continually creating new addresses that fragments are paid to/from, and so the inputs/outputs are multiple and not just a single 1000 XC address.

Conceivably a mixer could get more transactions simply by having more coins available for mixing... and also more network speed, processing power, etc. Perhaps a single mixer could have 50k in it and be on a big server somewhere and thereby generate more revenue. However, I think this would centralise the network dangerously.

On the other hand, I'm all for incentivising nodes to perform better. Quicker service, or fewer issues, etc. might be pretty important in a web 3.0/blockchain 2.0 scenario.

How many wallet do you need one can run in a pc with 8 gb of ram and a regular internet connection.. lets say 25 to 50 mbts

As long as the xc port number is fixed, one wallet for each public IP address you got.
Or start tricking things with tor

Yes what I mean that all virtual machines will need at least one GB of ram to run so I suppose max 8 wallets but it might be less