How 'pseudo-anonymous' could it be.. ?

[spartacusrex]

If you made an altcoin, and in it you enforced a couple of rules.

1) You can only pay to an empty/non-existent account. A new account.

2) Each account can only spend once.

This is effectively how Satoshi thought we would use bitcoin, by using 'getnewaddress', on bitcoind, every time someone wanted to send you money, and then by sending change to a new address.

Then,as a bonus, mix the coins up using CoinJoin / CoinShuffle.

Would that be 'enough' anonymity ?

How much information could actually be garnered from such a chain ?

[NASdaq]

If you made an altcoin, and in it you enforced a couple of rules.

1) You can only pay to an empty/non-existent account. A new account.

2) Each account can only spend once.

This is effectively how Satoshi thought we would use bitcoin, by using 'getnewaddress', on bitcoind, every time someone wanted to send you money, and then by sending change to a new address.

Then,as a bonus, mix the coins up using CoinJoin / CoinShuffle.

Would that be 'enough' anonymity ?

How much information could actually be garnered from such a chain ?

good idea, I like it. Lot's of over engineered solutions everywhere, sometimes the best answer is just to simplify existing tools

[GTO911]

good idea, I like it. Lot's of over engineered solutions everywhere, sometimes the best answer is just to simplify existing tools

Over engineered, can you please describe

[bathrobehero]

good idea, I like it. Lot's of over engineered solutions everywhere, sometimes the best answer is just to simplify existing tools

Over engineered, can you please describe

Sidechains and masternodes maybe?

[GingerAle]

so, I bought some bitcoins, send them to Address A. The exchange now knows that address. It's in their books, associated with my identify and fiat-world accounts.

In the humanized blockchain speak (as far as I understand it), this would be

"Address A owns 5 btc"

I'm a business, so I've implemented some payment software that generates new addresses for each of my customers. For whatever reason, I want to keep my business activity private from the exchange - say, for example, they are banning accounts associated with selling frying pans, because the exchanges jurisdiction outlaws selling frying pans. I happen to be selling frying pans.

"Address B owns 1 btc"
"Address C owns 1 btc"
"Address D owns 1 btc"

I go to make a new transaction. The software scans for outputs that I own

An investigator stumbles across my frying pan webfront and wants to figure out if I'm abiding by the law of his jurisdiction. He buys a frying pan.

"Address E owns 1 btc"

The investigator now knows address E is the one selling frying pans.

If I then go to make a transaction, say, for 8.5, all of those outputs would be used in a new transaction. All of those outputs would be used, and the change would go back to a new address, which we'll call address F.

So now address A, which has identifying information tied to it via the exchange, is now tied to address F, which is the change from my transaction, and they're all tied to my frying pan business.

And if you say "well, we could just modify it so that when you craft a transaction, you can select outputs for your inputs", well then you've destroyed fungibility.
And if you say "well, you could just use a separate private key for your frying pan business", again, is it fungible?

 

[e-coinomist]

Got it, for a really fungible frying pan business I would need another coin starting with "M".

[Novak (Pairex - design)]

Be sure there are a lot of ways to chase a person )

Anyway there's simple rule (in real life too) - never use the same address again )

[GingerAle]

Got it, for a really fungible frying pan business I would need another coin starting with "M".

If I understand things correctly, yes. I don't claim to be an expert - what I described is just my understanding of the problem at hand.

another coin starting with M, perhaps. Ultimately who knows.