Sorry, but I think we are talking about totally different scenarios. In my diagram, my entities are intended to represent literal entities that are separate. Like three people or three companies or whatever. I either don’t understand your diagram or I fail to see what it has to do with the scenario I was trying to illustrate.
In my scenario, three separate entities sending value to the same public address has a very, massively different linkage profile than three separate entities sending value to three different, unlinked, one-time-use public addresses.
In my perfect world, there would never have been anything in zcash called a t-address. I invite you to read my first post on this forum from January 2016. Given that we don’t live in that perfect world, all I am trying to say is that forcing all non-shielded transactions to and from the zashi wallet to happen through a single public address that is reused over and over is such a gigantic and unnecessary hole in the privacy model that it really would be a bad joke for something that its developers call a privacy wallet and a privacy currency. Except for the fact that those same people, or people representing the project, are out there on social media proclaiming that zcash is the most private crypto currency available and that zashi is the reference wallet.
I’m here, and have been here since 2016, because privacy is something that I care about and I understand enough about ZK proofs to believe that they could, in fact, be the basis for something amazing privacy-wise. It’s an absolute wonder to me that it’s just short of 10 years later and it’s still not.