Quote from: btcbug on October 22, 2017, 03:45:14 PM

As far as anon-coins being illegal, can you elaborate on why you view this differently than Cryptos in general. What I mean is that Armstrong argues against BTC saying the elites simply won't allow it. You're rebuttal was that they can't shutdown Cryptos without shutting down the Internet (at least I hope I'm not misrepresenting correct me if i'm wrong). However, on the other hand you seem to be saying that Anon-coins will be banned and users jailed and consequently they won't be a viable solution as we'd all hoped.

The current USA law criminalizes (up to a 20 year felony) accepting money that has a known criminal origin, but apparently if you have no reasonable idea of it being criminal in origin, then the law does not currently criminalize it.

But the thing is that if youre accept money from anonymous source, then you have not done the basic due diligence to insure you have reasonable belief that the money is not of criminal origin. So it is possible that all anonymous sources may become illegal to accept.

The USA appears to be the worst in this area so far. As I wrote, I could not find such criminalization of individuals (except for someone acting in some professional capacity that is AML regulated) in the Finnish law which I cited, at least for now.

In short, I think absolute anonymity is not going to hold up over the long-term as viable. The nation-states are going to have an incentive to criminalize black money as their hunt for taxes intensifies as the sovereign debt crisis accelerates with the coming short dollar vortex which is really going to accelerate in 2018.

Anonymity as a privacy right, where the payee knows the identity for payer, might however remain viable and allowed (because the payee can still report the paper trail to the authorities). Without privacy, businesses can not even use cryptocurrency because it means their competitors could track their activity. There are many other reasons that privacy is important and needed by society. Thus anonymity technologies remain important.

But note that if payees are reporting payers to the authorities, this is the sort of meta data collapse that I mentioned in my blog (linked from the OP) which is the subject of this thread. And thus the Zcashs technology (not necessarily the current Zcash implementation though) could (in theory) be more reliably anonymous than the Monero/Cryptonote/RingCT technology. Which was the conclusion I made in my blog.

Note Zcash (Zk-snarks actually) has some performance limitations which were discussed in the comments that ensued at my blog. And this has to be addressed for it to be truly viable. Thus technologically anonymity is not yet a solved issue. There are potentially zk-STARKS coming and I heard that Monero is even looking into these new technologies.

Frankly though, I do not think any purely anonymity coin will survive long-term. The best anonymity technology will be folded into the most widely adopted altcoin and then that will be the end of the separate anonymity coins eventually.

Quote from: Invester on October 22, 2017, 08:42:16 AM

Why fucked? That was a hasty generalization that is purely based on fears that have no basis whatsoever. This can be placed in the category of FUDs.

Here we go again with someone who cant read.

And no, I am not going to repeat all the information again just for you. You can learn to read or continue telling others to eat dogfood.

Quote from: Invester on October 22, 2017, 08:42:16 AM

Monero and Dash are still leading in the world of anonymous coins, as well as ZEC. These 3 coins are the top when it comes to hiding your identity. Deeponion is introducing itself to be like them but I have doubts.

Dashs technology is absolute nonsense and I wish disingenuous shills would stop making us repeat that. But let them eat their dogfood. Additionally, anyone who thinks onion routing is reliable anonymity apparently has not studied the threat vectors.