Quote from: slapper on July 09, 2014, 07:37:46 PM

Quote from: coins101 on July 09, 2014, 07:30:42 PM

Quote from: eltito on July 09, 2014, 07:25:19 PM

Quote from: slapper on July 09, 2014, 07:10:07 PM

Quote from: eltito on July 09, 2014, 06:50:52 PM

Quote from: slapper on July 09, 2014, 06:48:31 PM

And a serious question to Evan.

Would it be possible to extend the # of participating MNs via a configurable user option to enhance anonymity past Ring Sig levels?

MN = 0 ; Normal Transaction
MN = 1 ; Current mode
MN = 2 ; Darksend+
MN = 3 ; Darksend++
MN = 4 ; Good luck NSA
MN = 5 ; OKTHXBAI

Are we concerned about bloat in this case? Too complicated for average Joe to use in GUI?

Yes it's possible. No, the way he would do it wouldn't cause a lot of bloat. Nor would it complicate the UI.

WOW! Sorry if this was supposed to come as an announcement later as we have not seen anonymity "levels" configurable option discussed before, but thanks for the reply. That changes everything as far as transaction obfuscation was compared to CN/Ring Sigs. I think I do remember however that Evan decided to stay away from a Ring Sig port, must have been due to bloating concerns.

Oh no worries, we're just talking possibilities

. But yeah routing through multiple MNs is doable. User selectable...well maybe, but it might not be the best way go about it from a security (or user-friendliness) standpoint.

Charge the rich bastards with plenty of money and lots of reasons for extra privacy insurance to tumble through minimum of 2 + X MN's.

Might be a waste of fees, but that's what life insurance is: lots of regular payments for money to be paid out for the benefit of others, so you can sleep well at night, if you end up sleeping permanently.

Still, would get more master nodes on the network.

B I N G O

I do love a good Slapper Grin