If you don't have perpetual emission of coins, the cost of mounting an attack will drop to the point that it becomes trivial. Not sure why everyone fears a low perpetual inflation.

    That's rather shortsighted.

I also studied the zero-knowledge algorithm (protocol) of the unlinkable ring signatures and I concur with the conclusions of that review. Adam Back, G. Maxwell and others have apparently reviewed it as well.

Can anyone give me a pointer to where the following is being discussed?


One quote from the whitepaper review could be misconstrued:


Key images don't protect against double-spending attacks.

Rather they identify an attempt to double-spend a one-time ring signature (they are what make it "one-time"). But the acceptance is still game-able the same as an attempt to double-spend in Bitcoin is.

The key image is recorded in the block chain and attempts to double-spend are checked against it. Ditto in Bitcoin, the address of the spender is recorded in the block chain and attempts to double-spend are checked against it. The difference is the key image provides unlinkability via the ring signature and the zero-knowledge protocol, but this doesn't make it more hardened against double-spends than Bitcoin.

And with my proposal, linkable block chains such as Bitcoin could gain much more resistance to double-spends than unlinkable block chains such as Cryptonote and Zerocash.

Why isnt this coin in consideration for being added to Cryptsy? I mean its not even on the list of potential coins to add  

I think you need to read rpietila's quote one more time. You completely missed his point.

A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential.  I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well.

You are strawmanning. He only said a constant % rate of growth causes exponential growth. Nothing about the value of anything.

Incorrect. He was arguing against a constant % rate of perpetual mining rewards (a.k.a. debasement). He conflated this with the exponential growth of the value and adoption of the coin.

I getting close to putting you on ignore because you are causing me to make noise posts in order to correct your careless noise. You don't read and comprehend before you post.

Hey before you do that though can you take a look at my response to your claim that miniblockchain addresses the scalability problem.

Actors (users) are not verifying nodes, so you math is slightly incorrect in that respect.

However, your point remains valid that transactions scale O(NxN) by Metcalf or Reed's law. And verifying nodes probably don't scale by N actors.

However, Metcalf's law doesn't tell you the frequencies at which actors do transactions. Visa is currently at about 6000 transactions per second, so this can be verified with a single Intel CPU, so no problem for verifying nodes.

Scaling up to 6 billion people and micro transactions (more frequent transactions) might present a scaling problem. I've looked at Lamport signatures schemes that can verify 100,000+ transactions per second on a single i7 cpu. Since verifying nodes tend to be pools with considerably more resources (amortized over a large amount of hashrate), then a 10 - 100 cpu farm (or a Tilera 64 core cpu) is not unfathomable without destroying decentralization of pools.

Long-term the solution is simple. An ASIC for verification will scale sufficiently to 6 billion and micro transactions.

In short, no problem! Mini-block chain addresses the problem of block chain size and its impact on decentralization of mining. Cryptonite does not include anonymity however.