If there are external services that can take care of anonymity, then why the need for it in the base protocol? As much as I wanted zerocash, now I realize that it could be dangerous for VTC. Would governments tolerate it?

But then again, what could governments do? And if VTC did implement zerocash, you can expect a huge surge of users coming from BTC- particularly those who use it for transactions on TOR, and transactions of that nature. Furthermore, would it really affect public perception, particularly in a negative way? I wouldn't think so. VTC would just become the "BTC how it was meant to be"- decentralized, fair, and especially, inherently anonymous. Anonymity, after all, is usually mentioned as one of the great supposed benefits of crypto-currency.  

To elaborate on the effect on public perception: I don't think it would really matter. Piles of dollar bills conjure the notion of drugs and drug dealers, arms trades and so on, yet this does not stop people from using dollars. Why should it stop people from using VTC? People will use VTC if it has strong support, and it would get strong support from the community of investors and miners who are interested in cryptocurrencies because they are anonymous.


I am split.

There is a saying "security is not a product, but a process." Depending on a protocol -security through a product- to be anonymous is dangerous. Usually there is a way to exploit any technology. However, if one is to use lots of different addresses, not associate them with their real identities, use coin mixers, and so on -security through process- then VTC could just as well be anonymous.