Author

Topic: [IDEA] No more merging of outputs for payments = more anonymity? (Read 1198 times)

bc
member
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
Apparently not too many people are worried about anonminity as a feature. thats a good sign. But darn it I thought a bit-illion dollar idea...

I think it's a great idea. I hope others follow suit.
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1003
I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man
Apparently not too many people are worried about anonminity as a feature. thats a good sign. But darn it I thought a bit-illion dollar idea...
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1006
Nothing prevents you from implementing this. It will improve anonymity, but is the improvement worth it? And it needs to be implemented on merchant-side, and probably only a very small percentage of your customers are going to use it. Most are just too lazy Smiley
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1003
I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man
I ment as in you use those advanced clients to send to each generated address for the cheaper in bitcoins order.
sr. member
Activity: 369
Merit: 250
Correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure you can do this anyway with advanced clients (blockchain.info supports this sort of thing afaik)
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1003
I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man
Ah, who cares about anonymity anyways....
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1003
I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man
What does the community think about Cheaper In Bitcoins to have the option where multiple addresses(as many required) can be generated to one fund one order. The only merge that happens(On the block chain) is the accidental chance that the same merchant "withdraws" the same coins to an address, which sounds unlikely if Cheaper In Bitcoins was getting a lot of traffic.

Half-baked?
Good Idea?
Huh?
Thoughts?
Questions?
Ideas?
Suggestions?
(Hey that last bit rymed!)
Jump to: