Quote from: Profetu on July 22, 2014, 12:19:01 PM

http://pastebin.com/G4mH4AxR

That is better than nothing, but having only such a short part of the whole thing makes it hard to reason about with the bigger picture in mind. If there was the usual diff header, it would be a bit easier. Considering that it is also outdated already, I do not feel like investing time into figuring how it works. I hope you understand.

Quote

"Closed source can be everything and nothing." - you are free to make a transaction and find a link between sender and receiver in the blockchain. I think a bounty is still in effect for this.

Please see: Kerckhoffs's principle

Cryptographic contests and bounties where the systems inner working are not published, are generally not accepted among cryptographers.

While Kerckhoffs's principle mainly applies to cryptographic systems, following Shannon's maxim, I believe it should be applied analogously to anonymity systems. If the way the system works is opaque, you cannot reason well about its security.

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 11:46:34 AM

- it's not coinjoin, because its not centralised or semi-centralised. There's nothing akin to masternodes in XC either.

This is a very strange claim. CoinJoin was originally designed to be decentralized and trustless. To me, it sounds more like you have implemented CoinJoin the way it was originally supposed to be built.

Quote from: smooth on July 22, 2014, 12:42:54 PM

Quote from: synechist on July 22, 2014, 12:40:18 PM

- we'd avoid causing clones, which reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon

Whatever the other merits of your approach, this one is silly. There are hundreds of altcoin clones, with countless more released every single day. Whether or not your particular pet coin gets cloned or not makes no difference at all to the overall phenomenon.

Let us hope for their sake that nobody hex edits name and certain other things in the binary to launch a clone coin. :-)