CoinCube aren't you missing from your analysis that:
1. Knowledge Age can create anonymity, so it will.
2. Anonymity in theory enables the productive to keep it from being stolen (by tax, legislation, regulation, and confiscation) by the unproductive.
As far as I can see, we only have two choices:
1. Anonymity and enable the technologically productive to cast away the dead weight.
2. The dead weight drags us down into an abyss Dark Age as the "99% target the 1%" and the socialism taxes and destroys everything that is productive.
I agree with your points above in regards to the immediate future and the inevitability of anonymity.
Conflating chaos of aggression with the chaos of productivity appears to be your error.
Here is where we do not yet have consensus. I believe your entropic theory contains the following oversimplification.
The entropic theory of knowledge states that entropy should be maximized to increase the degrees of freedom in the economy and thus maximize prosperity. I would assert that the goal is not the maximization of entropy per say but rather the maximization of the harvesting of entropy to achieve a higher order state.
Lets look at the distinction between the chaos of aggression and the chaos of productivity. The former is often pure destructive chaos while the latter is the controlled harvesting of entropy to achieve a higher order state.
This is the fundamental bedrock of life itself which has mastered the deadly dance of harvesting entropy. Absorb too much entropy and the species succumbs so mutation tumors and death. Absorb too little and the species stagnates eventually succumbing to competition from other more entropic/evolved species. Life walks the edge of a razor maximizing the harvesting of entropy.
Anonymity allows uncontrolled destructive chaos. It can be thought of as a form of chemotherapy. Yes it may achieve the goal of limiting the cancer of collectivism but it does so only at great cost to the greater host (humanity). I agree it may be needed at this juncture, but only because the majority of humanity is currently engaged in collective insanity.
Anonymity without the threat of collectivism is like chemotherapy without cancer it's just another poison.
Anonymity does enable the productive to keep wealth from being stolen (by tax, legislation, regulation, and confiscation) but it also facilitates, theft, abuse, murder, fear and thus limits the maximum harvesting of entropy. The
Bitcoin assassination market is only a hint of what can be done.
For this reason anonymity cannot last. No matter how well designed its very nature will destroy it. Once the acute need for it subsides and tumor of collectivism is contained the majority of the IT community will turn on it. No form of anonymity however well designed will survive that.
The problem with Martin Armstrong's proposal of raising awareness and then the people rise up to stop the "99% target the 1%" (where the 1% becomes everybody in stages just see how every country fell into communism and/o fascism)
I would argue that Armstrong's solution is the only optimal long term answer. I agree it won't suffice for the current crisis there simply is not time and humanity is not quite smart enough. Long term, however, it is the only hope of an optimal outcome. The demographic trends you noted in your blog will help facilitate this (may take several generations)
Do we need anonymity?
Sadly for now we probably do.
Do I have any other ideas?
Perhaps consider bifurcating your coin into two versions one with the anonymity features you are working on and another without. In the long term it seems likely that an anonymous coin will gets us through the crisis but an open coin will become dominate once the crisis subsides.