Oh smoothie you instigator ahahah
say his name thrice in a mirror with the lights off and he'll be back trust me lol
this guy likes to talk that is for damn sure !

although i missed his going away party and why etc i did not want to read that far back.
you all pound this topic so much i read very little of it and just skim through trying to glean what i can  
i am lazy and i am not reading that guys techno-gibber-jabber LOL

you all talk too much and sorry but your boring..

AAnonymincedmeat

Moneroman88 is not involved in monero in any way. The only thing he does is pro-monero trolling and most of the (monero) community hate him for that. You should really review your stance.

Thieves like to associate with Monero community, not the other way round.

You've done an excellent job of deconstructing TFM/anonymint in your last several posts. And it's been hilarious!

Irony = Palpable.

anonymint, your username inspired me to register unicorntesticles.  I feel I have the most awesome domain on the net now.

Could there be a major flaw in how these currencies are being used right now? I can imagine a highly likely scenario where surely >50%, and probably much closer to 90% of all the xmr coins ever emitted currently have have moved through one single address?

Additionally, could the percentage of mined coins directly to that exchange address have a strong effect on anything?

Will having likely 90% of all coins ever currently minted using xmr as example, which is 21.37% of all coins that will exist currently routed through a single address, occasionally branching off for one or two transactions before going right back to that address bode well for the cryptographic anonymity provided by ring signatures?

Yes and no. There is a button to change payment ID but I think they go to the same address. However, on the blockchain they go to different addresses because stealth addresses are always one-time.

The addresses is a non-issue. There is no connection between different transactions just because they have the same public address (unlinkability).

The issue of someone controlling a huge share of transactions is a real one, and amounts to a form of sybil attack on traceability. Some transactions will become traceable in this manner but transactions with high mixes or multiple hops become effectively untraceable even by someone owning 90% or more of the outputs due to the exponential function.

Also, just as a matter of general privacy, exchange transactions are easily identifiable since they have a payment ID, and many people don't change their payment ID very often, so you can find all their transactions that way. Given this, we can tell that the number of exchange transactions is high but not extremely high. There are still a lot of mining transactions, pool payouts, and other incidental stuff (donations, MEW memberships, private trades, people moving between their own wallets, etc.)

As a second practical matter, I don't think (most?) exchange transactions today even use mixing, so even the sybil attack doesn't apply. That could change the future, although one would hope that there would also be other uses besides sending coins to an exchange constantly, otherwise who even cares.

Finally it is important to remember that unlinkability (stealth) and untracabilty (mixing) work together to frustrate blockchain analysis. Even when you can partially overcome one, the other often makes the results useless. So for example, if you can defeat untracability on some tranasctions, you just get links between anonymous one-time keypairs that don't identify a person or link with other payments to or from that same person. Conversely if you can link some keypairs together, you can construct an "identify" (still not necessarily linked to a person) but you can't see the flow of funds to or from that identify without also defeating untraceability. You really have to defeat both simultaneously on the same set of transactions to get anything useful, and that is much harder.