So i have a few questions..

If ANON was needed so badly why did the dev's not submit the idea to the Bitcoin core dev's foundation etc ?
Was it because they knew it would be rejected ?

Seems to me i am not the only one who has rejected this anon coin idea huh ?
Otherwise BTC would have anon code in it already mirroring what Monero is doing.

I love how they patronize everyone and say it's needed.. but the entire Bitcoin world rejects them.
Not just .. Spoetnik  

Instead they felt the need to create a NEW coin and tack on ANON features..
Rather than trying to get the ANON code integrated into BTC.

Hmm i wonder why ? Any idea why people ?
Why is it they would want to start a new coin ? hmmmm ? Maybe Risto can answer he bought LOTS of them and controls the coin.

Yeah.. the guy with the Pink Bentley who lives in a castle.

So what do we see bottom line ?
Want Morono's ? well guess what ? you need to buy them.. with Bitcoin  
Yup.. Bitcoin hahahhahahah

AND ...

You can line up at Poloniex the official shitcoin exchange for them to buy them clutching your picture ID.

So Profiteers.. do you see through this retarded little facade ?

The beauty of transparent blockchains is that EVERYONE has the same view.

Where obscured-tech goes wrong is that it creates a gaping great asymmetry between holders and non-holders which kind of makes a mockery of its claim to "fungibility".

To compound that problem, it's the non-holders who support the value (being on the bid side of every transaction) and they're the group locked out of that blockchain's transparency. Even the verification of individual transactions is asymmetric between sender and receiver leaving the a prospective economy based on such a system wide open to social engineering attacks.

It's a tech that's based on an ownership record keeping archetype for 3rd-party backed money, not unbacked monetary assets.