[WireWrap]

If "You can be very sure that the anonymous person you communicated with last week is the same anonymous person you are communicating with and potentially transacting with today." that person DOESN'T have strong anonymity.

If "You can be very sure that any transaction you make cannot be disputed." then you DON'T have strong anonymity.

[Animats]

But it uses blockchains, and blockchains are magic. Distributed blockchains with VC funding, no less.

[mikekchar]

I could not find a non-paywalled definition of strong anonymity. The closest I got was the abstract for a paper by Kawai et al (2009) that claimed it would define the term, but failed to do so in the abstract.

I've also done a search for strong anonymity and deniability and I don't see anything that indicates there is a link. I wonder if there is a problem with definitions here. Can you give a link to what you think of as strong anonymity?

[saurik]

FWIW, I spent a minute with Google and found this (and hopefully copy and pasting this link has meaning).

https://books.google.com/books?id=JTKHDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA231&lpg=...

[mikekchar]

Interesting. Although you will note that in their definition, one of the parties (the bank) knows the identity of the customers. By tracing the transactions, they can deduce the identity. The original article specified pseudonymous transactions, so either the system is trivially strong privacy or (more reasonably) this definition is not really suited to this discussion.