/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>54692953
Please read what other people link before trying to argue against it. This just makes you look like a retard. But to point out a few things:

>no, you can't, because floods are just raising the tx noise floor over time.
Consistency or longevity doesn't stop statistical anomalies.
>there's been several of these strange "barts" in the tx statistics over the last few years.
A naive observer will look at the raw tx graph and will see various discontinuities, anomalies, etc. TX number going up does not constitute anomalous growth. See picrel. Many times those can be explained by stuff relating to the ecosystem such as DNM closure/(re)opening/increase in sales, HFs, mining pools doing stuff. We just recently fixed the fact that p2pool spammed outputs. But I guess you just looked at chart and said "that's a bart, must be the glowies!"
>the only thing stopping anyone doing this is the tx fee, which has always been as close to zero as you can reasonably get on monero
This is surprising, you did not only forgot to read the example I sent, but also the very post you replied to.
>adding a couple of zeroes over a 12 month period gives you nearly everything you're going to get.
>implying costs and efficiency scales linearly
So Monero has a thing called "dynamic block sizing" and that includes a so-called "penalty area" of higher fees. In order to get to get close to any significant likelihood of de-anonymization, you will have to do more transactions obviously. But then transactions would get so numerous that it'd go into the penalty area and pay several times the fees. Also that'd be HIGHLY DETECTABLE.
>you've seriously embarrassing yourself if you think "AI" is any kind of risk to monero or any blockchain
To be fair I did not expect you to understand the current problems with our DSA. But to get started I recommend you read
>https://wiki.lunardao.net/monero.html
>https://ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/Rucknium-OSPEAD-Fortifying-Monero-Against-Statistical-Attack.html