[dodomodo]

Nothing is "really anonymouse", it's all a game of information sharing and hiding. I think I now understand the difference in our definitions, for you anonymouse means that at the protocol level no one can link the transaction to "you" (defined by a set of identifiers). My defenition is just "not publicly linked to your real world identity", so for example, sending a message under a pseudu name in a public forum would be anonymous under my defenition but not anonymouse under yours. What do you think?

[fruitworks]

Necroing this, but my general opinion is that anonymousity is more of a question of extent and the shape of anonymousity sets than a binary condition of anonymouse/public. But you are correct that we can never satisfy the binary condition.

Given enough foresnsics, it's possible to link pseudoanonymouse identities to real identities. See chainalysis. I'm sure if you apply stylometry to either of our posts, you could uncover our identities. I think there was a post here doing just that.

So my real problem with the pseudoanonymouse model is that when if fails, it generally favors centralized institutions in who are capable of the surveilance needed for correlation. It is asymmetric. People say that bitcoin's transparency is a feature, but the feature is only accessible to those with the metadata, like arkham or chainalysis. Reputation systems can be very useful though.