don't mind about being anon or not anon
It isn't about whether people mind if it is anonymous or not, it is about blatantly fraudulent claims being made as selling points to the general public. In my experience most people couldn't care less if a coin network is "truly anonymous", but they do care if they are being lied to.
Your utterances with regard to blatantly fraudulent claims being made as selling points to the general public are based on your narrow interpretation of anonymous. This is problematic, particularly as you one-sidedly use that narrow definition to base statements like ‘fraudulent’ or ‘dishonest’ on. Not I am magically twisting the meaning of “truly anonymous" to actually mean pseudo-anonymous, but you are limiting anonymous beyond its normal use in our language. Based on that exclusive use, you twist intentions and expressions to discredit LEOcoin and persons involved with LEOcoin.
With regard to the propositional content of the text you quote from the website; I agreed over and over again that (a) Leocoin is better not called ‘truly anonymous’, but rather pseudo-anonymous. For this reason, I also acted and (b) requested that the text you quote will be adapted by those who manage that website.
I am thus not downplaying something that is evidently not entirely accurate, but actually correcting it. For these reasons your conclusion that I regard pseudonymous as a variant of ‘truly anonymous’ is wrong. I have neither been doing that, nor been defending such a praxis – see (a) and (b).
What I have been doing, is attempting to explain to you in what context the text on the website has been issued in 2014. To what I stated in a previous reply in this regard, I would like to add:
“In colloquial use, "anonymous" is used to describe situations where the acting person's name is unknown” (source: Wikipedia).
It is therefore that I pointed out that your definition of anonymous is narrow – too narrow. You turn that around by saying that I would be defending a dishonest claim, but as I never disputed that the phrasing ‘truly anonymous’ is not accurate in the first place, I do not have a reason to twist of defend anything. I merely pointed out that for the meaning of a word the context needs to be taken into account. In my opinion you failed to do that.
Accordingly, I do downplay your assessment of the text you quote as (x) ‘an absolutely fraudulent claim’. As may be clear, I see the reason for you uttering that statement (x) in your exclusive use of a narrow definition of anonymous and bias against LEOcoin. Regardless of the other meanings the word “anonymity” has, in Greek it – anoonumia - literally means ‘without a name’ of ‘nameless’. So seen, namelessness is both a synonym and one of the true meanings of anonymity. Taken in this sense – and I do not claim this is the right or intended way of the author of the text – the phrase ‘truly anonymous’ can and may be interpreted like meaning something like “without passing on private details, like your full name, your home address or your bank account number.” In such a sense, your statement that the text is misleading or fraudulent would not be valid.
Yet, I have not written that text, so I simply take anonymous in a not clearly defined way. You however find in the phrase a ‘blatantly fraudulent claim’, presumably because with LEOcoin, or otherwise pseudonymous digital currency, transactions one or more IP-addresses can be traced, provided a person has the knowledge and the jurisdiction to do so. As almost all internet based exchange of data can be traced by IP-address, one could be inclined to ask, seen your definition of anonymous, if there does exist anything anonymous in the internet at all.
The important idea behind anonymity is certainly that a person is non-identifiable with regard to personally identifiable information (PII), to which indeed a transmitted IP-address does count. However, if we look at Wikipedia and see the list of PII: “full name, home address, email address, national identification number, passport number, IP address, vehicle registration plate number, driver's license number, face, fingerprints, handwriting, credit card numbers, digital identity, date of birth, birthplace, genetic information, telephone number, login name, screen name, nickname, handle, age, gender, race, workplace, grades, salary, job position or criminal record” we also see that it concerns only one instance of PII.
The mere fact that anonymity in general is not regarded in the way it is done in the ITC environment opted me to mention that your use of anonymity is too narrow. In fact, as you know yourself very well, pseudo-anonymity in digital currencies goes pretty far. It is not my intention to diminish the fact that in given circumstances, indeed transaction details can contain or lead to private information, but as long as anonymous is a pretty vague term, it goes too far, in my opinion, to reach the conclusions that you are ventilating.
