Well, here's the end of my little story. I asked the monero shill for a little clarification:
----------------
It wasnt a name calling contest. It was a discussion of the tech.
really? Compare this statement:
---------------------------
The problem that i see with dark is not necessarily whether it works or not. This criticism applies even if it does work. My big problem, and the reason I didn't buy it a long time ago even though I was shopping for anonymity focused projects, is that its just so god damn inelegant. Its like instead of approaching the problem from a fresh perspective and inventing something novel and clever, the devs decided to take the whack a mole approach. You whack the first problem over the head with a blunt instrument, this creates more problems, and you whack those over the head with another bunt instrument, thus creating more problems. The way i picture it in my head, and we see this in cartoons sometimes, someone is trying to stop a hose from spraying so they stick their thumb in the hole, the pressure builds up and water sprays out of another hole somewhere, and they stick their toe in that hole, then water erupts from somewhere else and they stick their other thumb in that hole. This is all I could picture in my head while hearing a description of dark for the first time.
Its just so god damned ugly. Maybe it works, but even if it does it's a vulgar solution to the problem, where as ring signatures and unlikable deterministic addresses is so beautiful and elegant and simple. Reading the white paper for the first time I was just struck with the beauty and elegance of the approach.
---------------------------
with this statement
---------------------------
Coins need to be mixed so you guys implement coinjoin at the protocol level. But then you cant just have every random user hosting coinjoin sessions because then you would open an attack vector for troll coinjoin hosts so you make master nodes. But then you cant just have anyone joining in the coinjoin because you could dos by requesting transactions but not signing so you implement the idea of collateral to be part of the session. But then now you have no incentive for the masternodes to form so you give them part of the collateral. It wouldnt be mixed enough if you did this at the transaction level so you have the blockchain tumbling peoples coins all the time. This is ridiculously expensive so you greatly subsidize the darksend transactions inorder to hide the huge cost of anonymity in your system. Now you have to worry about people trying to send transactions to each other through darksend so you have to try to come up with some clever mechanism to avoid this problem.
Its just like I described in my post. Plugging up the first hole but then new ones appear so you try to plug those up. Its an analogy of course but, in my mind, its an apt one and there is certainly reasons behind it. it wasn't just senseless name calling.
see the difference?
BTW, your revised explanation is VERY inaccurate.
I am quite certain that it misses and misrepresents some of the details. But i think the general point that i was trying to make holds.
And yes i guess you do have a point. Perhaps i could have explained more in the post, but it wasn't intended to get into all of the details, and i didn't want to make it too long. People dont read posts that are too long. I was prepared to explain my reasoning as soon as someone from drk challenged it. And that way it would be broken into a few smaller posts which might actually be read. No one ever challenged it though, which is, again, part of the reason i came soliciting in your thread.
But again, i never acted like a troll in your thread. And the comment we are discussing was made in a place where it was appropriate. You guys should have MUCH thinker skins than you do. That doesn't really apply to you either. You seem pretty cool.
So I responded:
We've had to put up with a non-stop barrage of trolling from "you guys" in our thread. Look for yourself. Anything you can do to put a leash on some of your attack dogs would go a long way towards saving your trust rating.
EDIT
I can't be held responsible for the actions of others in regards to your trust rating, but if you apologize...
smooth (the fair and balanced intellect that he is) came back with this gem:
reminder: there is a button on the lower right that can be used to report off-topic posts.
Please use it when posts are actually off topic or otherwise violate forum rules (and only then)
Oh come on. You are kidding right? Report to moderators? Maybe if they are spamming uncontrollably. But how old are we? We are supposed to "taddle tale" on people to the "grown ups"?
I know this thread is a whole lot of fun right now but let's not forget it has a purpose of discussing Monero. If the post isn't discussing Monero (could be positive or negative doesn't matter) it doesn't belong here. That's not just spamming but it could include spamming.
EDIT: But if people will restrain themselves and not post off topic stuff such as a list of threads about another coin and talk of hypothetical abuse of the trust system obviously intended to intimidate, the moderators need not be bothered.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sure enough, my post was deleted.
GhostPlayer is silly pig
