Anonymity

[MajidBC]

ring signatures used in coins like monero cause blockchain bloat making them unusable for mainstream adoption...so no...XC is what your looking for, read it and weep if your not invested already https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.0 

Can you explain a little about mainstream adoption and its compatibility problem with the ring signatures?

Imagine 2 blockchains processing the same amount of transcations. Now Chain 1 is running with ringsignatures and Chain 2 is not.

Now lets say that every year 500 GB of transaction data gets produced and no blockchain pruning and shrinking is available.
After 1/2/3/4/5 years
Chain 1: 750GB/1.5 TB/2.25TB/3TB/3.75TB
Chain 2: 500GB/1TB/1.5TB/2TB/2.5 TB

And this is under the best case scenario that ringsignatures only produce 50% bigger tx. This number can be higher!

I don't really find it that bad. People will still be able to run nodes no problem and regular people can use thin clients. Assuming that standard Bitcoin style thin clients work with ring sig tech. I assume it does but I don't know.

How do thin clients work?

[1713547371]

1713547371

[1713547371]

1713547371

[1713547371]

1713547371

[1713547371]

1713547371

[smooth]

ring signatures used in coins like monero cause blockchain bloat making them unusable for mainstream adoption...so no...XC is what your looking for, read it and weep if your not invested already https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.0 

Can you explain a little about mainstream adoption and its compatibility problem with the ring signatures?

Imagine 2 blockchains processing the same amount of transcations. Now Chain 1 is running with ringsignatures and Chain 2 is not.

Now lets say that every year 500 GB of transaction data gets produced and no blockchain pruning and shrinking is available.
After 1/2/3/4/5 years
Chain 1: 750GB/1.5 TB/2.25TB/3TB/3.75TB
Chain 2: 500GB/1TB/1.5TB/2TB/2.5 TB

And this is under the best case scenario that ringsignatures only produce 50% bigger tx. This number can be higher!

I don't really find it that bad. People will still be able to run nodes no problem and regular people can use thin clients. Assuming that standard Bitcoin style thin clients work with ring sig tech. I assume it does but I don't know.

How do thin clients work?

In general terms, you retrieve parts of the block chain you need from a node or server instead of storing the whole thing yourself. There are several different ways of doing that with a range of security and resource compromises. Most users of Bitcoin today are using lightweight wallets (or web wallets).

[MajidBC]

ring signatures used in coins like monero cause blockchain bloat making them unusable for mainstream adoption...so no...XC is what your looking for, read it and weep if your not invested already https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=630547.0 

Can you explain a little about mainstream adoption and its compatibility problem with the ring signatures?

Imagine 2 blockchains processing the same amount of transcations. Now Chain 1 is running with ringsignatures and Chain 2 is not.

Now lets say that every year 500 GB of transaction data gets produced and no blockchain pruning and shrinking is available.
After 1/2/3/4/5 years
Chain 1: 750GB/1.5 TB/2.25TB/3TB/3.75TB
Chain 2: 500GB/1TB/1.5TB/2TB/2.5 TB

And this is under the best case scenario that ringsignatures only produce 50% bigger tx. This number can be higher!

fluffypony's explanation method is comprehensive and with details, your method is "just in one paragraph". I like both methods

[MajidBC]

BTSX with TITAN is a good candidate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=687251.0

Although I can't compare with other anonymous implementations as I know little of them.

From the first post:
No need to exchange ugly addresses. Instead a Name can be registered with the blockchain which suffices to receive payments. The receiver is anonymous to everyone except the sender.

So, we can assign a username to any address? Can we assign more than a username?

Can someone compare it to other anonymous implementations?

[fluffypony]

I'm learning a lot from you. I think it's a good trade off, bigger hard disk space but un-linkable and untraceable transaction. I don't know anything about how blockchain works, but I'm thinking about a wallet which deletes the data which is, for example, a month old and can be used just for send/receive. Another wallet for the network. I haven't read the last posts here, and I guess I will find my answer there.

Wallets themselves don't take up sufficiently large amounts of space, the issue is that the blockchain contains the transactions for EVERY wallet (including mixing transactions in the case of other anonymous coins). As smooth explained, most Bitcoin users are using web wallets (Coinbase, Blockchain.info, GreenAddress, etc.) or SPV-style wallets (Electrum, Multibit, etc.) where you don't store the whole blockchain, only the info relevant to your wallet (which is tiny). All of the backends to those services, though, are running full nodes with the full blockchain by necessity.

[clovex]

we need anonimity it was what satoshi wanted

[MajidBC]

I'm learning a lot from you. I think it's a good trade off, bigger hard disk space but un-linkable and untraceable transaction. I don't know anything about how blockchain works, but I'm thinking about a wallet which deletes the data which is, for example, a month old and can be used just for send/receive. Another wallet for the network. I haven't read the last posts here, and I guess I will find my answer there.

Wallets themselves don't take up sufficiently large amounts of space, the issue is that the blockchain contains the transactions for EVERY wallet (including mixing transactions in the case of other anonymous coins). As smooth explained, most Bitcoin users are using web wallets (Coinbase, Blockchain.info, GreenAddress, etc.) or SPV-style wallets (Electrum, Multibit, etc.) where you don't store the whole blockchain, only the info relevant to your wallet (which is tiny). All of the backends to those services, though, are running full nodes with the full blockchain by necessity.

Can web-wallets be used for PoS?

[fluffypony]

Can web-wallets be used for PoS?

I would assume so, although PoS is so fundamentally broken in all its current form (and detailing the reasons its broken is outside of my wheelhouse, unfortunately) that I'd typically not want to use it either way;)