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. It is also an example of how marketing and technology assessment go together and can't be done piecemeal.
I am trying to tell you guys I am very expert at doing both. Please continue doubting me. Are we done?
If I you have addressed this earlier, I'll stand corrected on the following point.
Zerocash uses 2 kind of coins, basecoins (which are transparent) and zerocoins (which are anonymous). Users can convert those basecoins to zerocoins, but nothing stops them to make transactions with those basecoins themselves.
From their website:
Zerocash extends the protocol and software underlying Bitcoin by adding new, privacy-preserving payments. In doing so it forms a new protocol that, while using some of the same technology and software as Bitcoin, is distinct from it. This new protocol has both anonymous coins, dubbed zerocoins, and non-anonymous ones, which, for purposes of disambiguation, we call basecoins. In contrast to Bitcoin's transactions, payment transactions using the Zerocash protocol do not contain any public information about the payment's origin, destination, or amount; instead, the correctness of the transaction is demonstrated via the use of a zero-knowledge proof. Users can convert from basecoins to zerocoins, send zerocoins to other users, and split or merge zerocoins they own in any way that preserves the total value. Users may also convert zerocoins back into basecoins, though in principle this is not necessary: all transactions can be made in terms of zerocoins.
Since they are based on Bitcoin's protocol, don't you think it is likely they need IP obfuscation for either the basecoin to basecoin transactions or the basecoin to zerocoin transaction?