A modest proposal: squeeze out taddrs

Taddress by default should be all converted to Sheilded or Something that works the best

It has come to my attention that new users @MAGICAL and @Biker are the same person (same IP) posting on two accounts.

Both users accounts have been permanently suspended for violating the forums Code of Conduct against sock puppet accounts.


so the proposal here is to cap block capacity for taddrs artificially. To reserve additional capacity (including what we add via halo/scale) for zaddrs. So there should be scarcity induced fee increases. Would Gordan’s comment still apply?

Prince charges fees both on transactions and on storage, so thats an additional thing. Either way, similar concept: charge fees

I guess the question is do you raise fees directly, or by reducing block space. How do either of these interact with the free market.

1 Like

i agree there’s a use case for transparency in the sense of selectively or fully disclosing a transaction. You can do that with shielded by posting keys and data with the transaction on chain in the memo, though it needs better support. But i don’'t think there’s a case for bitcoin transparent transactions for transparency. (there may be for scripting )


I think that the meaning of “default” that you’re using here is a little misleading. By analogy, cash is “private by default” - but direct transfers between banks should not be considered private, and I don’t think that anyone would assume that they are.

1 Like

Why not do in bitcoin? Plus once block explorers with viewing key etc support is there, you don’t have that issue. Yes, there is some extra attached to it but then again you are asking for transparency from privacy coin. Z-addr users go through so much, i think it should be okay for folks to rely on viewing keys & payment disclosures for transparency. IMO, I don’t think charities have a requirement to use t-addr, they can simply use z-addr & use the amount they received for reporting (they use credit card, paypal already which are not transparent to public).

1 Like

Please don’t create duplicate accounts & get delisted :slight_smile:.

There are plenty of good ways to present an argument on one side or another for T vs Z addresses.

Making multiple accounts to reinforce your position is not one of them.

The Mods are keeping an eye out, this subject has seen an unusual amount of “new” accounts being created.


Suggestion for new accounts, share briefly how you discovered Zcash or follow Zcash if you’re not on forums (so others know you’re genuine follower). This is optional (we don’t want to derail the discussion).

In a separate thread.


All exchanges that support ZEC (which is most exchanges) happily accept deposits from zaddrs. This is another example of how the current taddrs-plus-zaddrs architecture provides the best of both worlds. :wink:


About wallet z-adress adaptation: isn’t it possible for ECC and/or the foundation to just pay a popular multicoin wallet (for example Jaxx or, preferably, Exodus) to implement z-adress? That works everywhere else in the corporate world so why not here? Would easily be worth to offer several million dollars (if declined just raise the offer to get it done, after which this whole discussion about removing t-adresses may be irrelevant).

Where can I get the money?

Sorry have edited, meant ECC or the Zcash foundation.

Then I can say that if it were possible, it would most likely have been done, but the problem is apparently that no one is eager for this implementation work, zec is a small asset compared to Bitcoin, Ethereum and so on, coins from popular wallets, and messing with zec creating problems for the main coins, I think no one will think of it, but I could be wrong. This is how the image works, it was necessary to make efforts so that everyone would like to work with zcash, even for free, the main thing is to touch the icon of cryptography and be involved in changing the world for the better (this is how the protection of different rights and the environment works), but now I don’t think that this is possible …
in addition, neither the ECC nor the fund have such free funds (I’m already tired of writing about this, that the money is from the price and the price goes down), and it is too risky to give away the last finances, taking into account the price adjustment down after the market falls.

I think you are wrong. Of course it is possible if the offer is good enough. For something like this it could even be worth taking a loan in order to save both the ECC company and Zcash.

I can, of course, be wrong, but I am 100% sure that this will not happen, which means I am right, perhaps the reasons are different, but I can assure you that your proposal will not receive support and no one will lay out money for such an idea.
But I’m just for! Are we waiting for someone to announce support for your proposal?

I created a new topic with the idea!

It’s worse from a privacy-perspective because at least in your example, the user could just send funds to a z-addr and then send funds to their intended recipient. In that case, the exchange wouldn’t really know what you do with the funds other than withdraw them to a specific starting address. But if the exchange is just doing database changes and not actually doing any on-chain transactions, that’s worse.

I came to conclusion that we have the best tech building on zcash
Nighthawk could be improved along with exciting fee model to promote ztoz

1 Like