Quote from: HinnomTX on July 10, 2014, 10:32:54 PM

Quote from: eltito on July 10, 2014, 10:23:39 PM

Quote from: HinnomTX on July 10, 2014, 10:19:13 PM

Quote from: salmion on July 10, 2014, 10:03:15 PM

Quote from: HinnomTX on July 10, 2014, 09:58:17 PM

But you don't want to make Darksend a rare, one-time event for your money. You want it mixed with others money always to enable anonymization of new money. Otherwise you get a chicken and egg scenario (i.e. awesome Darksend network build out with nobody feeling like they need to Darksend because they sterilized already, so new money has to wait a long time to be Darksent). Everybody should be using the Darksend format to keep liquidity up.

After every transaction though money will be darksend+ed. So same amount of mixing goes on. But your transaction speed doesn't suffer. Every wallet premixing. There will be plenty to go round.

Ok, agreed. We're just splitting up the masternode steps in time, which will make traceability that much harder (temporally speaking). We can do step 1 of Darksend+ to redenominate as soon I receive DRK. Then I'm prepared for step 2, which is the 'instant anonymous' transaction. Yep, I'm on board now.

Right.

Also, like I pointed out earlier, this means that Masternodes now have no direct involvement in the actual person to person transaction, so if someone decides to use Darkcoin to so something illegal, there is no reasonable grounds for Masternode owners to be held liable.

As always, consult your attorney etc. etc. because they can make a law for anything. But your logic does seem reasonable.

Another question though. I would be concerned about real time data analysis during step 2 of Darksend+. Can the re-denominated addresses be de-anonymized since their outputs would be spent at the same time? By that I mean not only would my addresses appear in the same block, but the broadcast of the transaction would group my addresses together in time. Is there a countermeasure that can be deployed for this?

Put another way, my group of re-denominated addresses appear at one time on the blockchain. A subset of them appear again as spent at a later time in the blockchain. Is that inconsequential?

If you were the only address denominating funds on a single block, perhaps. But what if the entire network was denominating funds automatically at a scheduled time (or pre-determined block)?