Quote from: gutz on June 01, 2014, 06:21:56 PM

@Devs & other involved individuals ,

Is it possible to make the anon transactions more reasonable for "real-world" uses?

I really like this post :

Quote from: Cryddit on May 29, 2014, 11:40:41 PM

In the second place, 'soft' anonymity is not 'no' anonymity.

I accept that Alice and Bob are not going to do business in the real world without knowing who each other are. Not for any serious, major amounts of money.

That means Alice cannot keep her financial dealings with Bob private without Bob's cooperation, and Bob, likewise, cannot keep his transactions with Alice private without Alice's cooperation.

As long as they cooperate - as long as neither of them releases the key they can use to prove something - then they have privacy.

That extends to privacy by mutual consent, but it doesn't extend to ripping someone off with impunity.

It doesn't mean someone can look into your ledger and know exactly what you're doing with a third party, without that third party's cooperation. That's a completely open ledger with no option for even 'soft' privacy, and that would be a *VERY* radical departure.

In designing an ideal for an open ledger, 'soft' privacy would be my goal. In fact, even that much should be optional. If people really want to get scammed and ripped off with 'hard' anonymity, they have that right.

And if they want to do without even 'soft' anonymity, they should be able to just publish their damn keyring and then sit back and let everybody who can actually offer them better deals than they're getting, come straight to them without wasting their time and resources on the sounding-out processes we now pay sales staff fifty percent of the produced value to carry out.

The point is, I believe people (and businesses) don't want hard privacy. Until they have enough experience to learn exactly how much they can save on cost-of-sales expenses, they won't want the completely open book either. Hell, if the salesmen get to make the decision, they'll NEVER want the open book, because it means they'll be unemployed. But at least in the short run, they just want protection from scammers, so they want 'soft' privacy rather than 'hard.' They want to be dealing in things that police can trace and courts can recover.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.msg7025123#msg7025123 ( the whole thread is worth reading )

I don't know the feasibility of it code-wise , but the concept IMO is a lot more exciting for OC if were looking for the long run

thanks for posting Cheesy

deff good stuff, I'm just worried about scammers...

I don't care about anon features really, lol I'm no dirty politician trying to hide money or pedo try'n to buy something they probably shouldn't have.

as far as I know anon features are still in alpha so who really knows how long it'll take before the diff types are fully tested, opensourced and trusted.