When you say "my address" (not plural), I wonder if you are aware of the fact that you can have as many different addresses as you like? Completely unlinked and unrelated to eachother?
I'm pretty sure they aren't "completely unlinked and unrelated to eachother".
But a coin will either be anonymous or transparent (or the option to choose one or the other per-transaction); no in-between. Is that not a correct statement?
No. For example, here are a few 100% transparent transactions.
https://i.imgur.com/1baw2JT.pngThe 2 BTC on the left was mine. Now, which addresses on the right still belong to me? Nobody can tell.
Note that pretty much all wallets are HD nowadays. There is no mixing or other obfuscation trickery at play here, this is just normal default wallet behavior.
Convince me why I shouldn't be concerned about lack of anonymity.
I hope the above picture explains why this is completely infeasible. Still, if you're
really paranoid, you might look at Monero's cryptonote protocol. That's 100% anonymity built in right there.
To me, the diagram you show actually depicts exactly what I'm concerned about. I understand that with zero information it doesn't directly enable someone to immediately lookup the name of the owner of the addresses and identify the transactions. But, does it not just become a matter of piecing the puzzle together, filling-in known information, and then some deduction that reveals the missing information?
So, as a holder of a bunch of different addresses, over time, as information becomes known about the other addresses in the tree, then my unknown addresses, through deduction, become more and more known, closer and closer to 100% known. Does not this imply that I would have to keep a constant monitor of my addresses to check, today, how "compromised" my anonymity is?
Right now, today, pseudo anonymous is very close to anonymous, and very far from 100% transparent. In the future pseudo anonymous approaches 100% transparency. No?
