We are talking about ...jamming a transaction, after spending a shitload of money. And that's to jam 0.x% of instantx transactions that at worst will be confirmed 150seconds later per the casual block confirmation... that doesn't make any sense.
If it's a valid game theory scenario, and makes sense for the attacker, we'll see it happen. I don't see it happening.
I was talking about darksend spying, which you can't see happening, but is all but inevitable (and the only way out there is essentially an accidental miracle) given the incentives.
Well, the more you mix, the lower the probabilities of bad actors affecting you. That's pretty much the same across the board, in all mixing scenarios, including Cryptonote mixin settings.
I've already explained the critical difference between the two. One has an ongoing cost to bad actors, the other does not.
You are leaving aside multiple costs for the bad actor. Devaluation for the coin by harming it, inflation costs for the holder (which are only
partially mitigated by masternode rewards, yet maxcoins is >3x of current supply), mass acquiring costs that lead the price upwards (it's not the same, in terms of market-prices, buying 100 dash and 400.000 dash to buy 400MNs), etc.
The lack of any quantifiable cost means is that attacks are plausibly unbounded. More mixing will not save you.
If you involve 1 MN for mixing, and 10% of them are crooked, you have 10% of being deanonymized by hitting the crooked MN.
If you go in 2 rounds, with 2 different MNs, your chances go to 10% of 10%.
In the third round you have 10% of 10% of 10% chance.
...etc etc.
Multiple round mixing was designed specifically to address the bad actor scenario.
Was there any peer review of the InstantX white paper whatsoever? Was TPTB the first one to catch the error 1+ years later?
The "error" involves broken game theory for the attack vector.
If we are just trying to find theoretical "dangers" but ignoring the underlying game theory, then Bitcoin and all crypto are already dead. They aren't because they are based on game theory, costs and rewards for the attacker etc.
) but there is always some good projects out there. and as long as they are fixing theirs issues i am fine with it.