Any updates on the topic ? Is anybody working on it ?
i hope they will update it, or someone pick it up since this is really important!
Live in hope, die in despair! ---
It will never happen. The developers want BTC to get mainstream acceptance. The major issue that Governments and institutions have is the perceived anonymous nature of the BTC system. Therefore the developers will not countenance the idea of increased anonymity, perceived or otherwise.
Forget the word anonymous, it has all sorts of negative implications.
What we want is privacy, and privacy in our transactions is what we are talking about here. We obviously have to do it ourselves.
Therefore start a Topic, find an Escrow holder, start a Bounty for a viable but entirely separate Privacy patch to be developed.
Who is interested??
Establish an Escrow and I pledge 10BTC
The reason this isn't included in the main client is because it is hard to maintain, and provides very little real benefit in reality. This has been discussed at length
in this very thread. By all means, please,
please! find someone to take charge of this. But take your bullshit conspiracy theories elsewhere, none of the devs are excluding this to gain favor with "the man".
In answer to your question :-
“What the fuck is wrong with you? What makes you bring this kind of shit here?”
This is what makes me bring this shit here!
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdfThen I can see you have already seen it but others may not have. So here it is
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ecb-paper-on-bitcoin-and-virtual-currencies-121271It's very interesting that you immediately take it that I inferred conspiracy and defend your perception abusively. Makes one wonder exactly why a perceived inference of conspiracy would elicit such a abusive response from Bitcoin Foundation-Life Member.
In short what I attempted to convey was. Viewed realistically there is no benefit to BTC as a entity in increasing the level of anonymity. In fact it may be detrimental because the level of anonymity is already a major issue with Regulators. Don't take my word for it on the anonymity issue, read the ECB document, ECB is concerned, all the Central Banks will have exactly the same opinion. It is not a conspiracy, it is common sense. It is called not making matters worse!
I don't for one minute think that the developers are as inept as you seem willing to portray. If they saw it as a beneficial priority, they would develop a solution that was maintainable and offered better privacy. It seems it is simply not a priority. Why is it not a priority? see the paragraph above.
This topic currently has ~13886 views it is about the fourth most viewed topic on this Alternative Clients board. That indicates that this is a matter of concern for many. I would guess that once more people read the recent ECB document and start to fully understand the possible implications there will be a great deal more concern.
Now, as for “the man” as you so quaintly put it, “the man” may be unable to shut BTC down in a single stroke but “the man” can make it so God-damn long term difficult that BTC will become nonviable.
Don't try to tell me the developers are not watching “the man” According to the ECB document Gavin Andresen has an “invite” from the CIA to brief them regarding BTC. But if you say so, no, no, the developers are not watching “the man” This is the Core Developer “invited” to brief the CIA.
Now, get real, if you are going to deny something, you have to make it at least plausible.
) for it? Altough i have to say i didnt check this function out yet, maybe its really that easy.
