Quote from: davout on March 12, 2015, 09:14:27 AM

Quote from: mortified on March 12, 2015, 09:09:40 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on March 12, 2015, 01:18:24 AM

... tyfu

You edit my objections, you aren't fooling anybody. Let's forget all that. I want to hijack this thread a moment. I posit that TOR is nothing but an experimental gimmick to offer obfuscation, nothing more and that HD wallets are a better solution for Bitcooin transactions. Sure, cryptonote and other signing schemes also add obfuscation, but HD wallets give you the ability to use different addresses for every transaction. This serves to cast doubt about the ownership of keys. You still want to use obfuscation schemes to hide your IP address perhaps, but payment channels can exist in many types of protocols. They are small enough bandwidth that they could be handled by any radio freq mesh, satellite, or even ELF. They can be acoustical, steganographic, or polarized. There are no limits to the types of obfuscation schemes for payment channels. As long as they are hidden, the HD wallet can do the rest.

I think you misunderstand.
I don't really care for this point about Tor myself, but from what I understand it's not that *users* should be able to hide behind Tor, what is being argued is that *miners* should be able to do so. And the argument is that it becomes much more difficult with a bigger block size.

I am 100% for users to obfuscate. I am 100% against miners using it. Having said that TOR mining wouldn't be desirable for commercial mining anyway. Centralized open competitive mining is optimum for consumer protection and global participation.