asciilifeform: ben_vulpes: i stopped reading at 'Any good solution in this space must also preserve the large investments many miners have made and are planning to make in their equipment.' and the swimming pool photo (??!)
asciilifeform bbl, heard that the ants in the kitchen are having a conference, and wouldn't mind if he attended to 'add his voice'
asciilifeform: do they also wonder why mircea_popescu won't come.
asciilifeform: fluffypony: if i'm, e.g., bitbet, and ROUTINELY reveal outputs, the chance is 100%.
asciilifeform: this is the thing about fancy schemes, apparently i'm an evil terrorist for thinking 17 steps ahead instead of the apparently assumed 1 or 2.
asciilifeform: and so now i'm stuck having to juggle pots of own coin to maintain this so-called auto anonymity ?☟︎
asciilifeform: imho the notion is misguided. existing bitcoin can work this way if one wants it to. but, e.g., bitbet, DOES NOT
asciilifeform: i know of at least 3 'dark coin' schemes, each of dubious cryptographic foundation, for 'nonpublic tx'
asciilifeform: and even if it were so, it does not help bitbet, which ~already~ could 'prevent miners from blocking tx' IF it chose to keep them secret, but pointedly DOES NOT WANT☟︎
asciilifeform: ben_vulpes: the one thing i will say for certain is that the moving parts gotta be ~number-theoretical~ entities, rather than idiot protocol-promise goop