Quote
2) If your concern is fungibility, then Zerocoin-like systems - not just this particular implementation with massive proofs and pruning issues, but basically any system that requires formation of "fixed-denomination" non-fungible "tokens" with fixed BTC value - would not appear to be acceptable solutions.
Since they outright break fungibility
Since they outright break fungibility
I think you are confusing fungibility with divisibility.
gmaxwell's points about enhanced fungibility due to strong anonymity are correct ... and are not widely appreciated.
You are correct that fixed-denomination tokens are not as divisible, but this is a simple technical matter of choosing the smallest denomination that makes sense in terms of value. Eg. if we had system that dealt with strongly anonymous satoshis as the fundamental unit it would be functionally equivalent as a money to bitcoin as it is now.
Ah indeed, my bad - that's what I get for posting w/o caffeine
However, I do believe that part of my point still stands.
In any system where anonymity is achieved along the lines of
[classic BTC-style TX -> classic BTC-style TX -> "weird" high-anonTX ->
-> 
-> classic BTC-style TX] fungibility may start failing same way it could start failing in BTC now.
Merchfolk could begin refusing to accept coins which appear directly related to the "weird high-anonTX"