Sometimes I wish this site wouldn't allow n00bs newbies to post in my threads, until they've gained some reputation. I wish I had a moderator setting for that. I could delete their posts, but that would make it look like I have no counter-argument.
It's too bad that there's no legitimate way to automatically measure whether or not someone's new here, a lot of people recycle their identities into new profiles. The repetitive bashing that results is fantastic though.
* I am very skeptical of anonimity as a "weapon of freedom". On one hand, one cannot build a functional society only with anonymous interactions. What makes society work it is the network of person-to-person interactions, where the parties know and trust each other. In anonymous interactions, outside the reach of government, there is no incentive to honor deals or build a reputation.
This logic is pretty fuzzy. When I go to an ATM and deposit cash . . and then use those funds to purchase something online . . it's effectively an anonymous transaction as far as the merchant is concerned. They don't have any way of knowing that it was my own cash from my own wallet that ended up in their account. They never have. They take the bank's word, on trust, that I paid for what I purchased and that the money is in their account. In this situation, the bank(s) are acting as a type of escrow.
You said that the parties trust each other. That is wrong. The parties trust the bank when a debit or credit card is involved. This has become pretty much every single time. It's now increasingly rare for people to use cash. Even people that have trust in cash have even more trust in their cards:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/business/newly-wary-shoppers-trust-cash.html?_r=0Also, I feel like you're severely limiting the interpretation of anonymous transations, and using that to try and justify your main point. You have every ability to make the tx's non-anonymous by exchanging them in person or using a trusted escrow system(where trust takes the place of mistrust in anonymity). This system can be manifested through an actual person or group, or automated like the paypal or now
bitstamp bitpay system.
This institution has already been built on anonymous transactions. This can easily be carried over and repeated with anonymous internet money.
Afterthought: Actually this is one of my major focuses that I'd like to work on. If anonymous currencies were to exist, and someone were to develop a banking system on that foundation . . what types of parallels would we expect to see with the current system of exchanging money through a bank?
Does bitcoin, with a traceable blockchain history, negate the need for banking because of the lack of trust necessary? Does an anonymous solution invite them? If we were to fit this into our present solution to inspire trust amongst consumers and merchants by using banks, would creating them again be the only way an anonymous coin would work?
Apart from those questions, the need for anonymous transactions would still be fulfilled in a world where banks built trust in anonymous currency . . because you'd still have the ability to find someone in the world who accepts your cash that trusts you personally to not screw them on the deal (without it being able to be recorded back to you). In this sense, there is quite a bit of anonymity and you only give it up to develop trust in situations where there can be none (for whatever reason).
Also, by saying 'trust' I only mean for the particular transaction. Not that you'd be comfortable sharing details of murder with the person. Just one simple instance of trust.