In general, pretending competition doesn't exist results in one thing, and one thing only. Absolute failure.
Evan is aware of how the "game" is played. If you have a weakness, others will capitalize on it and say "ohh but Darkcoin is this or that but we are sooooo much better on that"... so you want to be able to maintain your lead.
In terms of anonymity we'll need strong IP obfuscation + encrypted communication, enhancements that -if possible- disallow the node from knowing what's going on or from where the original requests came from, and superior management of change to prevent linking after a future spend.
The denomination pools solve a problem on how inputs seem alike and thus are more resistant to analysis (as evidenced with the article analyzing coinjoins with different amounts of input) yet present an issue on requiring more money than one wants to send which could be an issue on larger amounts as was discussed a couple of months ago.
May I suggest a further mode of mixing, "scheduled mixing" at something like "the Dark Moment" / "Dark Hour" etc... it'll be like you leave the wallet open and it will activate a time delayed transaction at the nearest "Dark Moment"... this could be two times per day or four times per day (03:00 / 09:00 / 15:00 / 21:00), in which a lot of accumulated transactions will take place simultaneously. This will allow for more mixing due to larger volume. This could also be programmed in a different scheduled way in which parties will mix only if there is interest from at least another 5-10-15 parties. So a queue is formed and when the seats are taken the mixing occurs.
Concerning the FUD, I agree. However given the novelty of anonymous coins, having a constructive conversation of the tech behind competitors is critical to ensure the long term strength of darkcoin. Unfortunately that doesn't happen, because most of the conversation is worthless FUD, and is incredibly annoying. But what isn't FUD typically is shot down immediately by posts like this, which is incredibly unfortunate. If better technology is implemented by someone else, it shouldn't go overlooked because people weren't willing to discuss it.
The competition is pretty lame as it is, but DRK should not in any way "bank" on the failure of others. It must rely on doing its own thing and excelling on it.
As for the scaling issues of CN coins, it's not FUD, it's reality. The scaling is not only in terms of blockchain size, but also of speed and ram use of the client. Some aspects are been worked but others seem to be DOA. Should that be something that DRK can "bank" on? No. The incompetence of others is not our business - it's the market's business to avoid them and choose DRK, while DRK works to provide the best anonymity possible.
