# Gavin Andresen
# 2013-05-30 13:15:54
# https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=175156.msg2318052#msg2318052

I've started and then stopped writing about Zerocoin three or four times now; my thoughts about it are still muddled. @p{par}

It adds a whole lot of complexity to transaction creation/verification to solve one problem:  how to mix coins/transactions with zero trust in the mixing process.  That's technically nifty, but I wonder if it is the best engineering solution. @p{par}

I wonder if just using a couple of semi-trusted mixers would be a lot faster/smaller/simpler. @p{par}

And then I start thinking about "tainted coins" in general. If we imagine a world with either mandatory or voluntary "taint tracking" (I have no idea whether or not that will ever happen), then it seems to me any mixing scheme that isn't "always on" is likely to fail in practice@p{--} all coins coming out of the mix will be considered tainted. @p{par}

Why? I assume that most users (if you are reading this are @p{(bf}NOT@p{bf)} "most users") don't care much about privacy/anonymity. So I would assume most people would choose the lowest cost, fastest, most convenient method for their transactions. Anybody using a mixer will be either a weirdo, principled privacy nut (like us) or a criminal. I don't see other "privacy first" projects taking over the world, but do see lots of big, successful "quick and easy and free" projects. @p{par}

Then my thoughts get muddled, because "it is hopeless, just give up" is not an answer I'm willing to accept. But it feels to me like finding an essentially zero-cost way to increase transaction privacy that everybody uses by default is the best answer. Making your network connection more private is the other piece of the puzzle, though, and all of the solutions for that (either route through a couple of semi-trusted proxies or use Tor or i2p) add significant convenience/speed/financial costs. @p{brk}