I agree 100%. This is also important for preventing tx fee escalation and keeping coins spendable. If you click the link in my previous post aminorex and I discussed the issue in depth.

I'm not sure about this one. It has been five years since bitcoin launched. That's roughly 3 doubles in Moore's law terms. I don't think typical MRO transactions are a lot more than 8 times larger than typical BTC transactions. Pruning will eventually become an issue, but again looking to the BTC example, in five years exactly zero has been done about pruning in BTC (though SPV clients have become common). Something will need done, but it is not urgent. I don't hold up BTC as a role model in terms of development, but it does show that these sorts of problems can exist and not cause crippling failure for several years.

There is certainly a cost to the way the anonymity features, but it isn't as if the cost doesn't come with an huge offsetting value proposition. It does.

In any case I definitely agree with your other points, about user-friendliness and "getting it out there." There is much work to do.

In the current design there is no obvious relationship between block time and transaction fees, because there is no fixed maximum block size, so no scarcity of block space ever. Even relay time doesn't necessarily matter, because there are (complex, but tractable) technical solutions like starting to relay a block while you are still receiving it, or relaying blocks incrementally (bittorrent style), etc.

There are secondary effects, such as limiting orphans that do matter, which is why 1 minute is patently absurd, and even Satoshi's 10 minutes might well be right.

It is also possible the current dynamic block size design might not work, but I think we need to see it start to fail (or at least compelling simulations) before reaching that conclusion. It seems pretty well designed.

I'm always nervous when correctness is attributed to a troll, so please pardon my reaction formation:  Technical features are just one small slice of many important distinctives, some quite intangible and abstract.  For use as a currency liquidity is central, and MRO is a furlong and a fortnight ahead of the privacy-enhanced alternatives on this point (disqualifying DRK on grounds of technology -- I don't consider it realistically competitive in the long run, for the natural monopoly of global liquidity in the private currency market, certainly not as it exists today).

Masternodes: allows a bad actor to DDoS the legitimate nodes whilst maintaining a private network of their own nodes, and being able to observe and control the mix of transactions. It would be extremely trivial for law enforcement to create the semblance of anonymity whilst being able to fully monitor and control it, all because of the convenience of masternodes.

Ring signatures: I hope Darkcoin implement ring signatures in less than 6 months and in a manner that is not overly kludgy. The more coins that use the technology, the more refinement it goes through, and the more we can address challenges together.

I2P: we have decided this is a non-starter - forcing clients to run Java just introduces an additional attack surface and a set of dependencies. Monero already works through TOR.

XMR is the future.

Scalable I guess not in an abstract sense, I would have to agree. I was only really disagreeing that it is an urgent problem. At anything close to 8x the transaction size of BTC, I don't see a crisis.

I'm sure Darkcoin won't depend on the Masternodes for anonymity as much once Ring Signatures and I2P are implemented. The nodes might just serve as an incentive to help maintain the network...unlike Bitcoin where hosting nodes does nothing to help you personally.

I2P, while java may introduce additional inconveniences at first, I don't see much of a threat, especially when it can be improved upon over and over with Dev's like Evan...

So overall, masternodes might be an incentive, while the I2P and Ring Signatures are the real anonymity...still leaving Darkcoin ahead of the competition.