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.
