Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 11, 2014, 08:28:38 PM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 11, 2014, 08:23:25 PM

Quote from: phosphorush on June 11, 2014, 08:19:28 PM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 11, 2014, 08:15:39 PM

Quote from: phosphorush on June 11, 2014, 08:11:14 PM

So when you send from original address A to the receiving address D , it goes to the mixer B, the mixer makes a new address C to send the amount to the receiver D? And Chaeplin doesn't get only A?

And chaeplin is adding that the mixer only uses one address for you, so once you know A, you can trace it. Which is what I said before. You have to assume A is known.

I see, thanks. So there is no direct link but if you are forced to show your address then they can prove that you made a specific transaction.

There are two conversations going on here at once. I want to deal with this side issue.
You have to assume the user's address is known.
Why? Bitcoin can change your address right now and use the same wallet...so some people think it's anonymous. It's not because you can tie all the transactions one person does back to an address. Once the address is known, you know all the transactions...bitcoin has always had that level of anonymity. This already exists in every implementation of every crypto-coin.

That means nothing to this conversation.

ATCSecure, I would appreciate if you could confirm this fact...since so many people jumping into this conversation - mistakenly do not understand this fact and its clouding the discussion which could be constructive.

This is the fundamental principle on which your solution is built. The problem it is trying to solve, correct? Anonymizing a transaction even if the sender or receiver is known.

Yes the REV1 release hides sender even if you know the receiver's address