I just read toknormal's post, and it makes a lot of sense. Personally, I preferred xmr, but toknormal makes a lot of good points that I kind of intrinsically thought were xmr's weaknesses but couldn't put it to words.
If that's true (and I don't believe that) then anonymity coins don't exist. Dash has centralized points of failure (and darksend is taintware ie. kills fungability) and every other anonymity coin uses ring signatures: XMR, SDC, BBR, XDN...
The idea that a time tested method for anonymity that no one has broken yet is somehow not good as a currency because the blockchain is invisible (it's not, you can still see transactions and using viewkeys you can show people your transactions if you want) is a false choice. The real choice is public addresses with mixing versus private addresses that you can make public if you decide to make them public. I do like how Tok tries to discredit cryptographers in his attempt dismiss one cryptocurrency for another cryptocurrency.
I want to make clear that I didn't switch from xmr to dark or dash or whatever it's called. I still prefer xmr to dark/dash. But just as bitcoin has weaknesses that many are not willing to admit, so does xmr or dark/dash. If there is a possibility of having a "perfect currency", we, as humans are currently far away from that, I think.
@kazuki: You can continue your ad hominem attacks. That just reflects your own lack of ability to think critically and accept new information. If you even tried to look into my history, I've made 0 posts in the dark/dash threads, and many posts where I believe xmr has a positive future, as well as some concerns regarding xmr. If you continue to think I'm some sort of a hidden paid commenter for dark/dash/bitcoin, go ahead. That's your own choice. But that attitude will eventually cause you to miss a lot of potentially valuable information simply because you dismiss content based on the author of the content, rather than the content itself. Oh well.
