Quote from: Chronikka on November 19, 2015, 08:14:57 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 19, 2015, 08:01:43 PM

Quote from: Chronikka on November 19, 2015, 07:50:54 PM

Is it really that important for Ethereum to be anonymous, and could it be enforced only on a per transaction basis (meaning each transaction in ethereum can be anonymous or not at the discretion of the sender)?

From a business perspective anonymous is not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes having funds and transactions available for the public to see can provide legitimacy. For example if you buy a product online and pay with some digital currency, that transaction serves as your receipt. If the transaction is anonymous then your receipt is worthless as it proves nothing. But if the receiver's address is known , and you can verify ownership of the sending address, the transaction is forever recorded on the blockchain as your receipt. Anonymity can be useful but it can also be a detriment depending on who you are.

If Ethereum is designed to be a platform for crypto based services then anonymity should be a choice, based on the needs of the service. Just my 2 cents.

The things you describe are more of an issue with Zerocoin/Zerocash type coins; Monero-like ring signatures already solved those problems.

The anonymity is opt-in. View keys provide an audit trail when required.

https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/moneropedia/viewkey

If its implementing Cryptonote (Same as Monero) are there any plans to deal with blockchain size? Ring Signatures when implemented will cause massive blockchain bloat, and the Ethereum chain is already +3 GB after less than 4 months. Are there any strategies for dealing with this?

That's a good question, but unfortunately we can't discuss it here without being accused of "shilling." Roll Eyes