Quote from: smoothie on October 08, 2014, 12:29:24 PM

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 08, 2014, 12:14:56 PM

The name shouldn't have any thing to do with anonymity because ≈99% of the people have no clue what they would need anonymity for. That percent will improve over time, but far too late for us to scale up usership before Paypal, Apple Pay, etc.. take over.

And that is why the anonymity has to be automatic and it can't interfere (nor cause any tradeoffs) with the use as a currency.

Quote from: rangedriver on October 08, 2014, 12:07:24 PM

This is why Monero wins.

This is why Cryptonote loses.

You forget that increasing the difficulty to crack a private key is simply in the length of the key while allowing all normal charActers for creating private keys today.

Time and resources is the issue. Eventually the limits of technology will not be able to ever feasibly keep up in cracking private keys of crypto coins.

Any one interested in cracking private keys will need to employ tons of resources and time while the users and owners of crypto coins only need to implement a longer private key to disallow such cracks to occur in any meaningful amount of time.

What is the point of cracking a private key if you are dead by the time it is cracked? Lol

Sir, I suggest you re-read the linked thread. It seems you entirely missed the point.

1. You can't increase the key size of the historic chain.
2. Cracking historically spent coins is not a threat. The threat is cracking anonymity history at any time in the future.
3. The crack threats are not just due to key length. Key length won't help you in some cases against math discoveries, and certainly won't help against quantum computers.
4. Your heirs won't be dead in 10 - 15 years (or less or slightly more).
5. Why risk it when there are possible designs where you don't have to.