Quote from: K1773R on October 30, 2012, 08:05:14 PM

Quote from: flatronw on October 30, 2012, 07:30:37 PM

Quote from: kjj on October 30, 2012, 01:59:04 PM

Quote from: flatronw on October 30, 2012, 01:41:14 PM

Quote from: K1773R on October 30, 2012, 09:07:19 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on October 30, 2012, 08:31:50 AM

Any updates on the topic ? Is anybody working on it ?

i hope they will update it, or someone pick it up since this is really important!

Live in hope, die in despair! ---

It will never happen. The developers want BTC to get mainstream acceptance. The major issue that Governments and institutions have is the perceived anonymous nature of the BTC system. Therefore the developers will not countenance the idea of increased anonymity, perceived or otherwise.

Forget the word anonymous, it has all sorts of negative implications.

What we want is privacy, and privacy in our transactions is what we are talking about here. We obviously have to do it ourselves.
Therefore start a Topic, find an Escrow holder, start a Bounty for a viable but entirely separate Privacy patch to be developed.

Who is interested??

Establish an Escrow and I pledge 10BTC

What the fuck is wrong with you? What makes you bring this kind of shit here?

The reason this isn't included in the main client is because it is hard to maintain, and provides very little real benefit in reality. This has been discussed at length in this very thread. By all means, please, please! find someone to take charge of this. But take your bullshit conspiracy theories elsewhere, none of the devs are excluding this to gain favor with "the man".

In answer to your question :-

What the fuck is wrong with you? What makes you bring this kind of shit here?

This is what makes me bring this shit here!
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf

Then I can see you have already seen it but others may not have. So here it is
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121271.0

It's very interesting that you immediately take it that I inferred conspiracy and defend your perception abusively. Makes one wonder exactly why a perceived inference of conspiracy would elicit such a abusive response from Bitcoin Foundation-Life Member.

In short what I attempted to convey was. Viewed realistically there is no benefit to BTC as a entity in increasing the level of anonymity. In fact it may be detrimental because the level of anonymity is already a major issue with Regulators. Don't take my word for it on the anonymity issue, read the ECB document, ECB is concerned, all the Central Banks will have exactly the same opinion. It is not a conspiracy, it is common sense. It is called not making matters worse!
I don't for one minute think that the developers are as inept as you seem willing to portray. If they saw it as a beneficial priority, they would develop a solution that was maintainable and offered better privacy. It seems it is simply not a priority. Why is it not a priority? see the paragraph above.
This topic currently has ~13886 views it is about the fourth most viewed topic on this Alternative Clients board. That indicates that this is a matter of concern for many. I would guess that once more people read the recent ECB document and start to fully understand the possible implications there will be a great deal more concern.

Now, as for the man as you so quaintly put it, the man may be unable to shut BTC down in a single stroke but the man can make it so God-damn long term difficult that BTC will become nonviable.
Don't try to tell me the developers are not watching the man According to the ECB document Gavin Andresen has an invite from the CIA to brief them regarding BTC. But if you say so, no, no, the developers are not watching the man This is the Core Developer invited to brief the CIA.

Now, get real, if you are going to deny something, you have to make it at least plausible.

holy shit totally paranoid and talking stuff without proof for it? wheres the troll flag Tongue

anyway, ignored and b2t.

@flatfly:
electrum client is someway about trust, trust is bad!

@all:
ppl who need this dont really need it per GUI, a patch for bitcoind should be fine for everyone i guess?

Err... read up on SPV? Electrum now uses the SPV light-client protocol as defined by Satoshi to locally verify all payments, as well as connecting to Electrum servers (little more than bitcoind+ABE, really) to achieve faster synchronization. So, unless there's something I'm missing, Electrum 1.2, thanks to the very recent implementation of SPV by ThomasV, no longer needs to "trust" anyone.