TY for the intense discussion, the lengths that you go to in order to explain yourself are what keeps me interested.
I don't think anyone here necessarily has had their enthusiasm blown out though, it seems to me more of something that can be taken on/integrated in the future - a challenge perhaps. I'm probably just at a very low technical level with what you're discussing though, but who knows?
From what little I'm familiar with though, wouldn't something like ip-obfuscation be more exclusive of the currency protocol itself and have more to do with data is transferred through an IP? At least, if it were to surface in the world, I would imagine it to be aimed at something much more main-stream than a cryptocurrency. Like an email system or some other sort of messaging system would seem a much more valid proof of concept, rather than having it surface in a cryptocurrency for the first time.
edit:
Automatically (is this enforced or optional per wallet?) breaking the transaction outputs into constant units, e.g. 1 coin, 0.5 coin, 0.25 coin etc, will radically bloat the block chain. The ring signatures are going to be huge if you need to obfuscate among say for example 256 payers (1/256 probability of being non-anonymous) each for several inputs, as well as payee addresses for each of those fractional amounts.
For a transaction of 1234.567800000000, the transaction is broken down into parts 1000,200,30,4,.5,.06,.07,.008 . I have asked about the bloat on the chain before, and the consensus was that with the visible competition enforcing a 10% tax on mining to afford some privacy, then the storage space used to hold the blockchain would be a much less cost. I would like to know much more about this though, because the blockchain is noticeably larger in this protocol by a lot.