Quote from: Kyune on July 15, 2014, 07:03:28 PM

From the update:

Quote

Every 10 blocks, user clients network-wide will send any unmixed, traceable Darkcoins in their possession through an anonymization phase. In this phase, Masternodes are used in chained succession to mix the coins they receive from the network and break them down into homogenous denominations. After being processed by a minimum of 2 Masternodes, the coins are either sent to the next Masternode in the chain or back to the users wallet at randomly generated change addresses.

Can a user opt-out of this background anonymization for some or all of his or her coins, or is Darkcoin moving to a model where it is essentially mandatory that all coins be mixed in this way even if they are just sitting in wallets?

I ask because it seems like there are use cases where being able to trace the history of your own coins -- or proving that history to others, by pointing them to a neutral third party block explorer -- is a desired feature. Scrambling the ability to trace and document that history (when the ability to document that history is actually desired, of course) by mixing coins in the background introduces some new wrinkles, especially for business use cases.

You're asking if a coin that is being built for anonymity can be easily traced?

And this:

Quote from: Minotaur26 on July 15, 2014, 07:07:24 PM

Quote from: Kyune on July 15, 2014, 07:03:28 PM

From the update:

Quote

Every 10 blocks, user clients network-wide will send any unmixed, traceable Darkcoins in their possession through an anonymization phase. In this phase, Masternodes are used in chained succession to mix the coins they receive from the network and break them down into homogenous denominations. After being processed by a minimum of 2 Masternodes, the coins are either sent to the next Masternode in the chain or back to the users wallet at randomly generated change addresses.

Can a user opt-out of this background anonymization for some or all of his or her coins, or is Darkcoin moving to a model where it is essentially mandatory that all coins be mixed in this way even if they are just sitting in wallets?

I ask because it seems like there are use cases where being able to trace the history of your own coins -- or proving that history to others, by pointing them to a neutral third party block explorer -- is a desired feature. Scrambling the ability to trace and document that history (when the ability to document that history is actually desired, of course) by mixing coins in the background introduces some new wrinkles, especially for business use cases.

I respectfully disagree with you, the final transaction the person to person transaction occurs directly so that you can see the coins leave your wallet directly to the recipient's address and you can see the address getting the coins in the blockchain. So you can verify any transaction between buyer and seller just like you do now, but you are using previously mixed and denominated coins so that it is really a fog for everyone else! It is just brilliant, basically ecash! Great for business applications and way better than Bitcoin for B2B.