But thanks to both of you, reading this (though not fully understanding the concepts but getting closer every day), as well as other very thoughtful discussions about CN in other XMR threads is the main reason I'm speculating on XMR.  I (and I hope most others) condemn BCX's childish, terroristic threats - there was a better way to spark this debate than to give an arbitrary deadline - but I am glad it is happening nonetheless.  There are very few XMR transactions now, I hope and expect that to change in the coming months and years, but I'm encouraged to see such foresight.  

I do think that the possibility that states will crack down on anonymity (banning exchange to fiat, criminalizing use, I could go on..) is the greatest threat to XMR's viability.  But it is a remote one

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.)


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


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.

your a noob and know shit all obviously because i seen him kill coins before..
it may have been some time since it happened but it did happen LOL

smooth corrected you ? what/how could you presume it in the first place when in the rpietila altcoin observer thread, Risto had asserted that XMR was his first altcoin and you had been a very active participant in the thread as AnonyMint? Why the backtrack now taking smooth's question for a link as the final word?

Fuzzy math .....

I didn't recall his statement about Monero being his first coin, or perhaps subconsciously I didn't believe it, because I remember he mentioned Auroracoin to me at least twice, and I was surprised that he hadn't abandoned the idea from the first time that I told him my opinion that if you distribute it for free to n00bs, too many will be sellers driving the price down.

Other occasion that BCX offer to escrow a BTC bet:

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/514689.msg6292579#msg6292579

Note BCX has stated he is not part of Operation Shitcoin Cleanout, but claims he did educate them on how to attack Scrypt coins (sounds like he is protecting his Litecoin investment?).

I said I was writing one. I didn't say I completed it yet or that I have any reason to need to release it now.

Hey it is fine with me if you all don't take BCX seriously.

Apparently there have not been many confirmed TW attacks, and I don't know if any actually killed a coin. Apparently BCX stopped the Auroracoin threat. It will be interesting to see how he backpedals on this current threat.

If it were my coin, I would think I should not assume it.

I got the point. You guys have other priorities and you wish everybody would STFU already unless they can do most of the work.

No problem. I am not learning anything new by now and this is wasting time.

I assume nothing. I suggest that you can't assume that mitigation is required (which you suggested it was, unconditionally, in the previous message) if you want to take the analysis beyond "there might be a flaw."


True


False.

I don't care whether anyone SsTFU but as I said if you want your message to be heard by anyone looking at things at a technical level it has to be presented with more precision and detail to rise above the normal noise level of worthless FUD. That is not "most of the work" it is simply presenting your ideas (which could well be valuable even if they represent only a small part of "the work") in the way that technically, scientifically, or mathematically competent people communicate.

For me a ban means no coins can transact, i.e. it is legal action that requires an unknown justification. Rather blacklisting would be a different legal action that has established justifications already in AML, KYC laws, etc.

New coins are not mixed with any rings and thus are not part of any blacklist cascade. They can be transacted.

A blacklist can be more effectively enforced at the miners than by a law that must be enforced other ways.

I really don't know what it is so difficult for you to unconflate banning an entire coin and blacklisting. Only coins in the blacklisted cascade wouldn't be allowed to transact.

Indeed controlling the miners is an effective way to incentivize people to give up passwords and such, as the blacklisted coins are dead.