Just wanted to point out.....
StealthCoin will implement (Sublinear signatures) "Chandran Signatures" - this is ring signatures WITHOUT the block chain bloat
Ring signatures provide TRUE anoniminity - there is no doubt about that - but they suffer from bloating the block chain - this is why sublinear signatures are a good way to do anon - but wihout the bloat
Ring Signature coins (Crypto Note Coins) are not feasible for high volume transactions - the chain would grow to large to fast if people started using it like bitcoin or litecoin is used - Stealthcoin wont have this problem - which means stealthcoin could handle VISA or Mastercard type volume without being bloated out to butt fuck no where
Chandran signatures are square root in size - so it means that a 36KB ring signature now becomes a 4KB Chandran signature - means less space eaten on the block chain (faster synch times etc)
Crypto Note coins are impractical due to the large space requirements - this is why stealth will utilize "Sub linear Signatures" or "Chandran signatures" and be immune to the bloat - it allows to handle bitcoin volume like transactions
Chandran signatures (sublinear signatures) were conceptualized at UCLA (they are a real thing that DOES work) - stealth coin will be the FIRST coin to implant such thing
BBR (Boolberry) was close to solving the bloat problem by pruning and expiring signatures - but this is not the optimal way to do it - "Chandran" SubLinear signatures is the PROPER and optimal way to do it - by means that the signatures themselves will no consume near the space - so no need to prune
AND THAT'S WHY XST WILL SEE AT LEAST A 10m MARKETCAP. THIS IS JUST THE BEGINING.
I got this off the Boolberry forum, thought it would be interesting to share. I'd be interested in your opinions."+this. The interesting thing about trying to use sublinear signatures is the potential for even stronger anonymity, NOT scaling. I noted this in another thread already, but to briefly repeat it: Once you get down to the relatively small mixin sizes used by BBR, the sublinear effect is probably dominated by constant factors anyway. The thing that a more scalable signature scheme enables is being able to use 256 or so inputs as a mixin, cheaply, instead of only 4-16. That would be cool - but it wouldn't be more scalable.
Pruning is actually the more fundamental size savings, as Zoidberg notes: It gets rid of the signature overhead entirely after a sufficient window of time.
The two approaches are somewhat orthogonal, and there's no prima facie reason they couldn't be used together. But saying that sublinear signatures are the "proper" way to solve bloat is misleading. First, it's actually just dead wrong, because pruning solves it to a better degree. Second, it ignores the potential cool thing you *can* do with scalable signatures, which makes me worry that the person you're quoting doesn't know what the heck he or she is talking about.
"
BOB?
