Please rephrase This
> Simply saying that time for research to be conducted does not mean that it has been conducted
as I am unable to understand what it is you have said.
> I am not here to provide evidence of such research
Excuse me but what? Unless you are able to and or have the personal desire to provide evidence to support claims you make I would suggest you cease making them.
> The researchers have been busy on far more important matters such as bulletproofs and multisig.
^ This really does nothing more than further invalidate you but yes thank you for brining that up because it also raises the question of what should and shouldn’t be the role of the MRL as well as its priority.
1.Are they developers creating features or are they researchers who are meant to be investigating theories and producing factually verifiable suggestions and analysis based on available data?
2.Are features more important than security, I.e what should the primary focus of the MRL even be?
I understand these are separate issues, you may choose not to answer them in this issue. Regardless I will be adding them to a list of issues I intend to raise shortly.
>2. Non-default ringsizes reduce entropy and therefore decrease privacy. Ringsize is an important piece of metadata, and having people use different values allows users to more easily be identified.
> 3. Unusual ringsizes for multiple transactions can be linked. If a user sends multiple transactions with an atypical ringsize, then it is likely that these transactions are associated with each other. If this behavior is not permitted, users will not have their transactions linked this way.
really was the case why are you unable and unwilling to support it with any evidence when asked?
If you would like I will gladly burn some XMR to preform several transactions which will use non conforming ringsizes. The real ring member in the initial transaction will be known, just like it always is to the sender, in the subsequent transactions it however will not be. It will be up to you to link all subsequent transactions to the original and to determine the final resting place.
> As a result, since there is no significant reason voiced here not to adopt a fixed ringsize other than user choice/flexibility, and most people so far generally support it, then we should adopt a fixed ringsize.
I do not understand how a lack of non assumption based evidence was reason enough to start this issue again in the first place, this is also a separate issue for a later time, but having those assumptions pointed out as well as a general request to delay until research can be conducted does not meet the criteria of a significant reason voiced?
What does constitutes significant reasoning in that case @SamsungGalaxyPlayer ?
I am really sorry @SamsungGalaxyPlayer but NO. NO! This is not how any of this works and not how any of this should work.
Whats more you have taken to reddit and passed off assumption as fact to convince others of a change they do not fully understand the impact of, none of us really do, since not a single study has been preformed. You are essentially using FUD to sway the public and push forward this change, plain and simple. How is this ok?