Honest answer:  stealth addresses, while an improvement, are only a partial solution.  They need to be combined with ring signatures for truly effective privacy, anonymity, and unlinkability.

Honest question:  exactly how and when did Cryptonote "fail against darksend?"

Was there some kind of contest, review, or expert judgement?

AFAIK, Cryptonote is the only protocol mathematically proven to provide privacy, anonymity, and unlinkability.

You are confusing equality of opportunity (which is precluded by 20mb nodes' large care & feeding reqs) with equality of outcome (which is in no meaningful way encouraged by a mere 19mb increase). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome#Comparing_equalities_outcome_vs_opportunity

More than 1% of the world has already heard of Bitcoin, although only 0.001% of them >0 fucks about whether blocks are capped at 1mb or 20mb.

Until UXTO growth is contained within sustainable parameters, it is hopeless to expect anything resembling mass direct use to be driven by mere transactions per second.

People care about the price, not throughput.

The Great Schism threatens the price, which in turn retards hype/awareness/adoption/growth.

If the civil war goes hot and dueling forks ensue, there's no telling what kind of damage and FUD will be released in the wake of double-spent GavinCoins.

Mircea and his #BTC-assets brigade has already declared 20mb blocks to be an attack on Bitcoin, so some degree of fireworks/popcorn/tears/LULZ/drama are guaranteed.

Just release GavinCoin as an altcoin and let it stand or fall on its own merit already.


Satoshi created Bitcoin to destroy the TBTF vampire/zombie banks, not replace Visa:


Satoshi did not inscribe anything like this in Genesis:



To quote the great davout,


Bitcoin is a r3VOLution being fought for financial freedom, not a point of sale gimmick to better enable smartphone coffee purchases.

Nonsense.

To quote the great davout,

Paycoin is the only scam/shit coin that comes close to being as widely despised as DASH:



DASH is King Shitcoin, and not even Paycoin can dispute that well-deserved title of ignobility.

Bitcoin isn't going to fail because of full blocks.  I find your lack of faith disturbing.  As New Liberty said, "Sell your fear elsewhere."

It may experience temporary graceful degradation, but such adversity is required by antifragile systems in order to grow stronger.

Avg. Jose doesn't yet care about full nodes because he's never heard of Bitcoin, and Bitcoin hasn't yet closed the loop w/r/t fiat exclusion.

The infrastructure needed to onboard Avg. Jose, such as Lightning/Sidechains/linear UXTO scaling, is still in the vapor R&D stage.

Coddling BTC with lavish 20mb blocks, at the first hint of a possible sign of a whiff of tx fee pressure, decreases motivation to complete and implement that infrastructure and those optimizations.

BTC hype is largely driven by its price in fiat.  Price increases, not tps capacity, are what will sustain the next waves of publicity, awareness, and adoption.

What do you think the Great Schism and associated FUD are doing/will do to the price of BTC?

Will buyers think 'oh goody, BTC's stock is about to split into a parent corporation and a GavinCoin spin-off' or, 'holy shit, wtf do you mean I have to spend on both chains or abstain from transactions until the fork is resolved?"



The soft 1mb cap is protecting us from the hard (but uncertain) UXTO cap.  It was put in place for another reason, but also happens to be a serendipitous magic number.

Until UXTO optimization/pruning can keep set growth (sub)linear, Bitcoin cannot replace Western Union, much less Visa.

To quote the great davout,

Your appeal to popularity is duly noted.

I prefer being correct and hated by The Village to being wrong and accepted by the groupthinkers.

You sure did spend a lot of time and effort begging for HF's "power hungry, obsolete, uncompetitive product" before your Wasp fantasy was debunked as a go-nowhere fake-charity scam.

BTW, HF's "power hungry, obsolete, uncompetitive product" is still powering Icedrill's mines, which are in turn still paying me dividends.   

Nonsense.

Bitcoin does not "fail."  It gains strength when, and only when, faced with adversity.

In this case, economic and social pressure from full blocks will force ad hoc (offchain) and per se (technical) optimizations, as well as the required consensus/political courage to implement those big scary changes.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Gavin (but no other core dev) and Hearn strenuously believe we are at, or fast approaching, the "eventually" of which Satoshi spoke.

To one degree or another, the rest of the core devs disagree we have arrived or will soon arrive at that eventuality.

Because the trade-offs involved are valued differently by different individuals, at this point no consensus is possible.  Thus, status quo prevails.

It's not reasonable to expect Bitcoin to jump directly from 3 tps to tipping economy nirvana.

Of course nobody claims 20mb blocks get us anywhere near Micropaymentopia either.  But 20mb blocks aren't just a can-kick band-aid stop-gap, as they threaten the diffuse/defensible/resilient systems which undergrid Bitcoin's antifragility.

2015 is earliest possible date within SN's "5 or 10 years" forecast.  What good causes have we to seize upon the most optimistic scenario and proclaim it as factually reasonable?

Shouldn't we at minimum wait until the UXTO problem is optimized to go and press the Turbo button?


Who mentioned "average Joe?"  Not me. 

But I disagree that Average Joe cannot run a full node with a laptop, some extra RAM, and an average DSL.  Average Joe is very clever when his life savings is at stake, and his pocket is being picked by price inflation and ZIRP/NIRP.

Do you consider LukeJr an "average Joe?"  I don't.  If LukeJr can't run a full 20mb node in Florida, just imagine how many other lesser beings would be excluded.

The struggling Argentinian/Venezuelan/Cypriot/Ukrainian/Syrian is closer to "average Joe" but they find themselves in extraordinary (IE non-average) economic and political circumstances, which require them to run full nodes as a lifeline instead of a mere hobby.

Your appeal to popularity is duly noted.

I prefer being correct and hated by The Village to being wrong and accepted by the groupthinkers.

Applause.gif

Supernodes are a great idea for gnutella, where all that is at stake is how fast you get the latest Game of Thrones FOSS Linux distro.

Supernodes are not a great idea for anything involving finance, as they are exactly the kind of third parties Szatoshi warned us about.

As he explained, using TTPs indicates lazy developers who want to foist their responsibility for designing elegant/secure solutions off onto external entities.

As he admits in the post after yours, Bitchnellski begged HF (among others) for free chips.

That is 100% on-topic, because it explains his butthurt toward the company.

My understanding is marketing efforts are being intentionally limited to small/personal meetings/outreach, until the official GUI is more(ish) than less(ish) ready(ish).

For the record, I've never disputed the origin of the 1mb max block size, only the desirability of increasing it twenty fold before we know what trade-offs are entailed in the forms of optimization pressure, miner/pool/fee incentives, centralization, UXTO bloat, etc.

I'd wager the majority of the core devs, who at this time also oppose 20mb blocks, are likewise completely aware of the 1mb cap's origin.  I guess it's news to you, so you think nobody else knew either and you need to tell us all the good news.

Please note Satoshi chose to include in the blockchain a newspaper quote from an article about bailouts for TBTF banks, instead of one from an article about excessive bank, ATM, or credit card fees. 

Bitcoin is revolution and financial freedom, not a nifty gadget to put in retail points of sale.  If a guy in Venezuala (or Florida) can't be his own private bank by running a full node over TOR on a slow 5mb DSL line, this experiment has failed.

Satoshi did not create Bitcoin because he was mad about the 50 cent credit/debit surcharge on his iced Americano, and you can't kill/obsolete the BIS with some stupid VC micropayment daydream internet-of-bullshit Visa-wannabe transaction network.

And there is this:


If we subsidize blockchain bloat, we'll get more of it.

That most precious resource should be optimized, not diluted.

The sooner you Monopolist Maximalists get over the fact that GavinCoin doesn't have the required 80% consensus, the better.

The max doesn't have to stay 1mb forever, but now is not the time to potentially undermine the diffuse/defensible/resilient nature that provides BTC's antifragilty.

Nice trust rating bro.

How many ASIC companies besides Hashfast did you beg for free chips before your stupid Wasp pipe dream officially failed?

But I can't change my vote!   

Palm-ception.gif

...and KoziTwo's payment gateway has been available for some time.

CrapSea is welcome to shun Monero for as long as they please.  That place is so scamcoin friendly (#1 Darkcoin volume and in bed with GAW/Paycoin) it would make XMR look bad to be seen there.

Forget them, the place we need to be is BTC-E.  Who is up for a trip to Bulgaria and fun with Putin's dark-glasses wearing buddies?   

LOL, ^this^


Neither, because both are equally shitty/hopeless forms of off-chain obfuscation.