why is there no [ANN] thread? where are we supposed to be talking about darkWallet? also how badly is this going to crap up the blockchain? If everyone is mixing in the same pool than it shouldn't be so bad right?

Can you tell me more about S1 and S2 please. What are they specifically? If its an asymmetric key pair than which is public and which is private?

The [ANN] thread is so sparse on details. How is it determined which node gets to write the new block?

what aspect of it makes transactions anonymous? your transactions still have multiple inputs and outputs right? that could be used by researchers to build models of user activity.

hey thanks for taking a look. I've been thinking about it more and the one flaw I've found is in the process of making change. The exchanges could log information and sell it to the government or who ever.

i buy merchandise if i liked it.

i dont need to read a book, just tell me what the evidence is and link the original sources.

The question doesn't really make any sense. Government isnt a person and only people have goals. So if we are going to talk about what goals government has or ought to have, we can only be talking about what goals the people who run government have or ought to have. Government is comprised of millions of people with hundreds or thousands of goals each. So government has, and will continue to have, like literally a billion different entirely distinct goals at any given time.

lol generals dont pick up ak 47s and run with them

k that also makes sense

Do you make any other sorts of decisions in your life that way? Do you ever close your eyes at a stop light and use your heart to "feel" what color the light is? If you ever use your heart to "feel" whether or not food is expired instead of looking at the expiration label? If this is such a reliable method for separating what is true from what is false than why dont you use your heart to "feel" what stocks you should buy and become rich on the stock market? My guess is that you only use this tactic in situations where the negative consequences for being wrong are not immediate and not severe, but if it is such a reliable tactic than you should also apply it to situations where consequences are immediate and are severe as well. if you are not willing to use this tactic in situations where consequences are immediate and severe than perhaps you should consider admitting that it is in fact not a reliable way of separating fact from fiction.

if this is supposed to be a response to me than i dont think you understood what i was saying. it was an argument for how it is imposable for the existence of good to be proven because even if some apparently supernatural creature floats down from the sky and performs seemingly imposable miracles, you still have no way of knowing whether its actually god and not an alien, or a hallucination, or a life form from another dimension ect...

even if there was a god, you could literally never know that for sure, and nothing god could ever do could allow you to know that for sure.

actually its technically imposable to have undeniable evidence of something supernatural like that. so let me give an example.

say some glowing guy walked through my door and said "im god" and i said "oh yea well prove it" and so he performed some incredible magic tricks that no magician could do. so like for example he brought the chair in my kitchen to life, and it had eyes and a mouth and jumped around like something out of a cartoon, And then he granted me the power of flight, and i flew all over the room. Even if that happened, i would have no means by which to differentiate between a really advanced alien life form and a super natural being. So even with all of that crazy evidence i would have no way of knowing whether it was actually god,

be safe. make sure you only get assets with no counter-party risk and diversify. maybe 33% in bitcoin, 33% in gold, and 33% in silver. for example.

That would be super sweet if he actually listened to you and actually came down to pay me a visit. I would freaking love to have god over for dinner sometime.

or they have just never been provided with convincing evidence 

For those who dont know, a hard cryptocurrency is anonymous by design.

I've been twisting my brain in knots these last few days trying to figure out how it could be done. I know there are ways to do it with built in mixing but that's terribly inefficient, i really want to avoid that, i was hoping to think of something novel. I do kind of have an idea, but i dont know how good it is.

I kind of have this vague idea that what you need to do is make it so that addresses are not reusable and transactions can only have one input. If I'm thinking through the logic correctly this would make the currency anonymous. Of course it would have its drawbacks but then if you could build the rest of the system purposefully around that core idea, than perhaps you could sufficiently mitigate those drawbacks.

So thats where i was hoping to get some feedback, if we assume that the system must not allow addresses to be reused, and transactions can only have one input. How do we build an efficient protocol around those limitations?

Here is one idea i had. Perhaps, as well as only being allowed to have one input, transactions would also only be allowed to have one output. Addresses could be required to contain specific denominations. So 1 or .1 or .01 or .001 ect..  So think of it like bills of currency. The miner who minted a new block could determine how he wanted his reward denominated. Entrepreneurs would provide exchanges for breaking bills/consolidating change. this would mean that at times certain bills would carry a very small premium compared to other bills. Miners would respond to these market signals and produce more of the the bills that were in demand and less of those that wernt, thus keeping the heterogeneity of value between bills to a minimum.

anyway I'm not saying "lets start a bounty and make this thing right now", i just wanted to get this discussion started you know, and start throwing around some ideas.

that makes sense. i was just basing my conclusions on what you said, not on my intricate understanding of quantum physics.

so i have another question. if its imposable for entangled particles to transfer information, how could you ever design a test that would show whether two particles were entangled or not. wouldn't that test require that they transfer some sort of information between each other?

you go out of your way to say how you wouldn't drink pussy with out mentioning anything about the bawls?

Ok so maybe you didnt quite explain it properly, but according to the way you explained it you should still be able to communicate information. you would just measure it and when it is in a state than it is a 0 and when it is in superposition than it is a 1.