We see lots have a serious problem with such transparency and open money ledger, but - lol - these guys
Cannot come up with their stuff in public ( anonymous is not really sustainable, it only helps corruption)
Satoshi was pretty big on anonymity and privacy, in case you didn't know. From the
bitcoin white paper which your clonecoin has plagiarized:
As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them
from being linked to a common owner.
On the forum, he made sure that people could connect to the network through Tor:
There will be a proxy setting in version 0.2 so you can connect through TOR. I've done a careful scrub to make sure it doesn't use DNS or do anything that would leak your IP while in proxy mode.
He also talks about how bitcoin can be used to help people who want to stay anonymous:
...
It would be nice if we made some free PHP code for an image and file hosting service that charges Bitcoins. Anyone with some extra bandwidth quota could throw it on their webserver and run it. Users could finally pay the minor fee to cover bandwidth cost and avoid the limits and hassles. Ideally, it should be MIT license or public domain.
Services like this would be great for anonymous users, who have trouble paying for things.
... I've always thought the standard payment methods are at odds with privacy minded customers.
Here's satoshi mulling over the idea of implementing zero knowledge proofs in bitcoin:
This is a very interesting topic. If a solution was found, a much better, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin would be possible.
Originally, a coin can be just a chain of signatures. With a timestamp service, the old ones could be dropped eventually before there's too much backtrace fan-out, or coins could be kept individually or in denominations. It's the need to check for the absence of double-spends that requires global knowledge of all transactions.
The challenge is, how do you prove that no other spends exist? It seems a node must know about all transactions to be able to verify that. If it only knows the hash of the in/outpoints, it can't check the signatures to see if an outpoint has been spent before. Do you have any ideas on this?
I really should thank you for being so wrong all of the time, with each and every comment you write. It encourages me to learn more about what bitcoin is actually about. Basically, whatever you say, I learn the exact opposite is actually the truth, so thanks!
And you can also see why many of us are Monero fans.