results of what its its not really their problem i mean they looked at the paper they gave an opinion and they are already not thinking about it.
I presume you are talking about GMaxwell etc...? I'm just not sure that aquick look even from experts necessarily means much. Some of the comments showed them admitting they didn't look too hard. And who's expect them to?
to sum it up its just not really somethign that is viable but it is doable but comes with conditions..loads of them
Doable but not viable. That doesn't appear to make a lot of sense. Can you elaborate?
its better to go back to the drawing board and start again they are looking at the wrong paper end of story
Can you explain this, it's too obscure for me to understand your point. Thanks
how many people do you want to look it over before you realise its not gonna happen!
Well the appropriate course of action would be to have it seriously reviewed by someone competent.
you are talking about a dev team that have ported most of their coin and even removed copyright and put their own
Can you elaborate please?
gmaxwell: it's not clear to me that its 'doable',
Hardly a condemnation.
there may be related schemes in that family which are applicable (I haven't researched further)
Ok,,,?
, but the particular paper cited is of a technique which is not usable as is.
Interesting but...what exactly GMaxwell means we'd have to guess.
And looks like it would not be advantagious if it were possible to modify it to make it usable.
Pretty unclear.
its not doable the way they are implying its unlinkable/tracable
But why?