Why does Bitcoin not implement anon?

[sgk]

Why does Bitcoin not implement anonymous transactions feature? It would definitely be huge if it is implemented!

Also, if such features are not implemented what does BTC have apart from being the first and accepted by a large number of merchants? So why not implement the newest features from altcoins?

Though the core code doesn't have anonymity, projects like Dark Wallet make it possible to spend Bitcoins anonymously.

[Peter Todd]

Even anonymity as strong as Zerocash is not incompatible with strong public auditing of Bitcoin holdings; if anything it improves the auditing situation by making it easy to selectively choose who can audit your activities. I might be perfectly happy with my chosen accounting firm to see all my books in a provable way, maybe even my local government, while still wanting to ensure that criminals and competitors do not see my activities. With a bit of cleverness you can even make these audit proofs non-transferable - that is Alice could provide solid proof to Bob that she has the funds she claims too and her accounting books are correct, yet Bob would not be able to provide that proof to Mallory as either Alice or Bob could have produced it.

And yes, I agree 100% with gmaxwell's comments on the need for privacy. Bitcoin without privacy is simply a non-starter. In many jurisdictions failing to provide that basic level of privacy is even illegal in the context of many financial products, which will prove to be a serious barrier to Bitcoin adoption.

[ABISprotocol]

Why does Bitcoin not implement anonymous transactions feature? It would definitely be huge if it is implemented!

Also, if such features are not implemented what does BTC have apart from being the first and accepted by a large number of merchants? So why not implement the newest features from altcoins?

Though the core code doesn't have anonymity, projects like Dark Wallet make it possible to spend Bitcoins anonymously.

Except it isn't so atm, because Dark Wallet is not ready yet.  Dark Wallet is presently in alpha, v.0.5.0, still a ways to go.  
https://darkwallet.is/

Also, it should go without saying, that's a wallet project.  It will at least provide stealth and coinjoin as a natural part of any DW transaction, and will be used with Tor, but it currently doesn't offer what could properly be described as anonymity.

For that, a change to the bitcoin protocol (something like BRS (or alternatively zerocash in alt, then in bitcoin testnet)) would be needed, and imho, should appear as an option similar to how SharedCoin is presented as an option in blockchain's GUI.

[drawingthesun]

Even anonymity as strong as Zerocash is not incompatible with strong public auditing of Bitcoin holdings; if anything it improves the auditing situation by making it easy to selectively choose who can audit your activities. I might be perfectly happy with my chosen accounting firm to see all my books in a provable way, maybe even my local government, while still wanting to ensure that criminals and competitors do not see my activities. With a bit of cleverness you can even make these audit proofs non-transferable - that is Alice could provide solid proof to Bob that she has the funds she claims too and her accounting books are correct, yet Bob would not be able to provide that proof to Mallory as either Alice or Bob could have produced it.

And yes, I agree 100% with gmaxwell's comments on the need for privacy. Bitcoin without privacy is simply a non-starter. In many jurisdictions failing to provide that basic level of privacy is even illegal in the context of many financial products, which will prove to be a serious barrier to Bitcoin adoption.

Well this was always the hype of side chains wasn't it?

At the moment Monero offers proper anonymity via ring signatures and also has a view key that can be used to uncloak a user's transactions, but the user has to give up that key, it can't be derived from the blockchain.

So sidechains perhaps would allow Bitcoin to adopt the anonymous tech from Monero and implement it as a side chain into Bitcoin. Of course that goes against my interests as I am invested in Monero, but competition is good I guess.

[griffga]

Even anonymity as strong as Zerocash is not incompatible with strong public auditing of Bitcoin holdings; if anything it improves the auditing situation by making it easy to selectively choose who can audit your activities. I might be perfectly happy with my chosen accounting firm to see all my books in a provable way, maybe even my local government, while still wanting to ensure that criminals and competitors do not see my activities. With a bit of cleverness you can even make these audit proofs non-transferable - that is Alice could provide solid proof to Bob that she has the funds she claims too and her accounting books are correct, yet Bob would not be able to provide that proof to Mallory as either Alice or Bob could have produced it.

And yes, I agree 100% with gmaxwell's comments on the need for privacy. Bitcoin without privacy is simply a non-starter. In many jurisdictions failing to provide that basic level of privacy is even illegal in the context of many financial products, which will prove to be a serious barrier to Bitcoin adoption.

Well this was always the hype of side chains wasn't it?

At the moment Monero offers proper anonymity via ring signatures and also has a view key that can be used to uncloak a user's transactions, but the user has to give up that key, it can't be derived from the blockchain.

So sidechains perhaps would allow Bitcoin to adopt the anonymous tech from Monero and implement it as a side chain into Bitcoin. Of course that goes against my interests as I am invested in Monero, but competition is good I guess.

Do you think people would feel less confident if Bitcoin changed characteristics like that? I wonder would this have a lasting impact on businesses deciding whether or not to accept it?

[doldgigger]

And yes, I agree 100% with gmaxwell's comments on the need for privacy. Bitcoin without privacy is simply a non-starter. In many jurisdictions failing to provide that basic level of privacy is even illegal in the context of many financial products, which will prove to be a serious barrier to Bitcoin adoption.

Well, the question would be if Bitcoin should be developed explicitly to match existing jurisdictions for financial products (if so, what jurisdiction), or if we should rather continue letting jurisdictions deciding themselves if they want to call Bitcoin a financial product (and if so, what kind of financial product).

Bitcoin has been adopted and has grown quite a bit even before considering if it can be considered as a financial product in jurisdiction X.