Please do point out where I am lying. At your leisure. Don't feel compelled to do it immediately if you are busy.
You portrayed me as a liar when I, according to you, incorrectly stated that you have been going on for past months. I earlier stated that your initial assertation that Zerocash does not need IP obfuscation was incorrect. Using the same terminology as you, that makes you a liar as well. Guess it's a matter of how you see it, but I am not going to argue with you about this any further.
Well I think you are still (maybe unknowingly) lying about that IP obfuscation point. Realize I predicated my entire posting about Zerocash to the point of driving corporate adoption of block chain privacy, so in that context I don't think the IP obfuscation that is needed for ZC applies. In fact, I think it is a nonsense point that the white paper makes, because in the scenarios where one can't rely on the fact that the meta-data is not correlated to any UTXO (because there is none in ZC!) then one can't realistically attain reliable anonymity any way. So the entire allegation that ZC needs IP obfuscation is bogus. I stated that in my debate with smooth, but I doubt most readers (maybe not even smooth) got my point.
And this shows that the Zerocash developers may also not understand yet the correct marketing strategy they need to pursue.
I got your point, I just disagree with value of it. The Zerocash writers likely do as well, but I can't speak for them.
I do agree with the point that there are corporate use cases that can benefit from limited privacy, such the Liquid sidechain with CT (value hiding only). Whether those are viable long term I don't know.