As far as I am aware, Chaeplin didn't even try to crack it due to what he perceived as a non-acknowledgement of the hard link that he provided when the common wallet spent the dust, betraying its identity. Anyway it's not an issue I want to go into.
Of course you don't want to go into it, because Chaeplin admitted DRK wasn't patching against his pattern matching technique until RC 4.
Whereas Chaeplin couldn't crack XC once it upgraded to the mulitpath protocol, just like the XC dev said. Of course, Chaeplin will give various excuses but the fact he FUDs XC persistently shows his true colours. We both know Chaeplin would have wet himself in excitement if he could quickly crack the challenge and spam his result all over the forum.
DRK challenge is to improve / fix
a) nodes knowing what they are transacting
b) change addresses linking ownership
c) removal of 10 DRK limit but preserving identical inputs in some form as to prevent coinjoin analysis through different types of inputs.
And also to patch against the pattern matching analysis which links any addresses
DRK has lots still to do, like every anon currency. The number 1 being, not having a repeat of the fork that caused chaos a couple of weeks back.
Worse yet, if the blockchain is too big it can't even be loaded into the client. A few BTCs worth of tx fees just to spam the blockchain, can render it unusable for many users.
Well it's not too big yet and there are solutions that can be implemented in the future. MRO needs a lot of development though, that much is obvious.
In my opinion MRO is the "most" anon of any coins right now, but that comes at a trade off. MRO can't slot easily into the existing BTC/clones infrastructure, everything is being built from the ground up. But as we can see from NXT, when the work is 90% complete the end result of staggering.
If a trust algorithm is in place = it's still a trusted transaction. Coin forwarding = trust. Signatures = trustless.
No you don't understand. I said signatures + the algorithm. The signatures would make the XC nodes trustless, to prevent stealing. The trust learning algorithm would efficiently learn the bad nodes, to prevent blocking.
So XC would have the trustless transactions AND a more efficient network.
The bad node in DRK can monitor the transaction but it cannot really block it. At most it can delay it (at a cost, as the node would lose collateral) since the implementation is fault-tolerant.
NO a bad node in DRK can block a transaction. Of course the transaction can be broadcasted again at cost, but that first transaction attempt has failed.
It doesn't really make a difference to me. I can run a node from my PC as well. Instead of opening the wallet I can run the node, whether in my PC or laptop - even my tablet. It's just better to have a nice internet connection and DDOS protection.
Again you are missing the point. You are one person. XC approach means anyone can run a node easily. It's truly decentralised as I explained.
Some of that stuff with blockchain 2.0 sounds like snake oil, so for the time being let's stick to making the anonymity work....
Snake oil? What? Talk about a baseless remark. Now you are clutching at straws. The XC dev has delivered everything he has promised so far and even better, ahead of schedule.
You should really read about the past projects this guy has architected. It's no wonder he is sprinting through the deadlines so quickly, this guy is the real deal.
What is staggering is that in 1 month XC dev has done what took the DRK dev 4 months. And arguably the end product is going to be far superior.
All in all. Good read. Very fruitful.
