Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 04, 2014, 01:04:38 PM

Quote

Each output is being mixed with an exponentially-declining share of an exponentially greater number outputs.

My bounty algorithm shows that old outputs will mix until they hit their trigger of maximum mixes then the sender is de-anonymized. Thus the exponentially growing supply of outputs is continually being pruned, either by a mitigation you will implement or by de-anonymization if you don't implement mitigation.

You snipped where I pointed out that this exponential spreading only occurs up to a limit that is close to the total supply of outputs. So there is no conflict here, at least not unless you are able to show a smaller cutoff based on saturation of untracability, which you haven't. So again, you are making this vague "there might be a flaw" claim.

Also, again, you haven't shown that active mitigation is even needed. (I'm not saying it isn't, just that you can't assume it.)

Quote

Quote from: smooth on October 04, 2014, 12:32:19 PM

Quote

If XMR had responded to BCX's points about the quick difficulty readjustment and 20% discard with a whitepaper about such issues and the Cryptonote solution, then I would be more impressed

We can't and won't respond with a whitepaper to every vague claim of "there might be a flaw" that is posted on bitcointalk whether that is from you or BCX or anyone else.

Thus that is a difference between XMR and my style. Different culture. I took BCX's points seriously and made some interesting discoveries from it.

Oh, so you responded with a whitepaper. Really? Where is it?

Quote from: smooth on October 04, 2014, 12:32:19 PM

And you continue to ignore my repeated point that if they control the mining, they can effectively ban.

I don't deny that authorities can ban (or launch nuclear wars), and maybe that ban will be effective and maybe not.

I only deny that they can effectively blacklist within this system short of a ban.