Quote from: gts476 on July 07, 2014, 10:46:50 PM

Quote from: HKBvM on July 07, 2014, 10:16:10 PM

Quote from: gts476 on July 07, 2014, 10:14:02 PM

Quote from: HKBvM on July 07, 2014, 10:08:05 PM

I clicked on some of gts' links, can you really hire someone to implement anon for 0.5BTC? If that would be true, are 0.5BTC really the problem?

The real question you should ask, is 0.5 BTC all it's worth?

What? We might have a language barrier on my side here as I dont quite understand what you are saying.

I'm not a fan of anon.

I think there is an exponentially decrease in the value added as you move from 1st adopter, to second, to third, etc, etc,

'Anon' did wonders for DarkCoin, this is you first adopter

'Anon' did well for secondary adopters, those seeking to replicate the success of DarkCoin (I wanna say XC?, Veri?)

'Anon' didn't do much for tertiary adopters, CloakCoin, SuperCoin

I believe 'anon' will do very little for C2 as it falls between 3rd and 4th stage adopters of the code.
...

Agreed...
Anon is just a buzz word with no real world use for the vast majority of users.
The blockchain already provides a high level of Privacy, which can be easily maximised by not reusing addresses.

Why not...

1- Fix the validation process around sending coins? Payment amount validation should be performed BEFORE requesting the Password, not after.

2- Add a 'Send All' button so people don't spend 5 minutes trying to calculate the send amount factoring in transaction fees

these 2 design flaws affect practically all QT wallets & still not fixed.