Its not just an educational one. Its an incentive one: why would they bother. Who’s asking for them. Why spend the dev time. etc.
Right, exchanges need to understand they are working with Zcash and >need< to use Z-addrs as t to t will no longer be supported. The education will be equal & simpler to the exchanges learning about dealing with integrations with several PoS chains.
2 Likes
Kyc does work just as well for z as for t but the barrier to that adoption is an assessment of offsetting a cost of legal counsel with regards to interpretation of regulation into platform (exchange) specific rules, building that infrastructure and the risks of misinterpretation against the benefits. I think the actual likelihoods of adoption probably have a lot more to do with the individual exchanges financial status, the people who run it and however they might define where that offset is at then forcing anything.
This is why i like the idea of increasing the price of transparent transactions. If we make t transactions somewhat more expensive, it incentivizes exchange and users to move away. But it doesn’t force them for a long ttime. Exchanges will eat fees or pass them on if the cost of compliance for z is too high. Users will leave if they can. But a user and an exchange who are stuck still get zec.
The flip side, by making taddrs cost more,is it makes an argument for spending the time on compliance, etc. But it doesn’t seem to make an argument for delisting: just use t and eat or pass on the added cost.
Depends on how much more expensive it is, I believe exchanges would gladly pass up to 10% of tx total as fees on to the user without flinching to avoid working on compliance, further damaging the cost-use-case of Zcash. A software deprecation sends a stronger message to upgrade the internal practices.
Any price increase on fees will echo with “privacy costs a premium” rhetoric even if the premium is on T-addrs.
1 Like
My gut feeling is that it’s to complicated to use a price incentive model. May work in theory, but it’s once again one of those things that people or even exchanges won’t understand. We want to simplify Zcash not add yet one more layer of complexity. Just decide a block height where transactions to t-adresses are no longer supported (after all infrastructure is in place, maybe January 2022). Make a nice and clean cut and that’s it.
2 Likes
Current transparent usage varies from block to block and even from day to day. I’d set the cap so that on average (using maybe one recent month of data) there’s a moderate chance (>= 10%) that your transaction expires (which it does if not confirmed within 20 blocks). Needing to resubmit a tx is a good pain point that will make people consider switching to shielded txs. And demand better support for doing so.
And instead of halving every 4 years, which is a rather abrupt and huge change, I would smooth out the reduction to a tiny one every day.
1 Like
That is to some extent an appealing idea. Although, once again, quite complicated. Do any other coin work that way?
On a side note I think this kind of discussion, departing from economic theory, is typical for Zcash – “the academic coin”. Understand me right, I have nothing against academia (hold a PhD) but it’s not for the masses. Besides economic models are often wrong.
1 Like
That may not be such a good thing. See this bitcointalk (Development & Technical Discussion) discussion on dwindling block reward and the need to constrain block size:
1 Like
Most people would just stop buying Zcash due to too high transaction fees. Why should they bother? If it’s a problem of information (and we assume that there is a threshold to acquire this information) then maybe the threshold is lower to invest in one of the hundreds of other coins out there than to learn about z-adresses. The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that this won’t work the way it is intended. It would rather squeeze out Zcash than t-adresses. Not to mention the ridicule we would have to endure from Monero followers.
3 Likes
16 days ago I wrote another post full of “pessimism” about this fear
1 Like
Best idea let’s do it 
1 Like
I think removing of taddress is better instead of increasing the price perhaps we can implement it as soon as halo is implemented or anything feasible… But yes I strongly support the removal of taddress for the future.
1 Like
I’m all for the proposal, but shouldn’t we look at the issue from a user’s perspective?
How do we make sure that when T transactions are getting more expensive, the users will care enough to switch to z2z transactions instead of just shifting to another solution?
Shouldn’t we have all in place to facilitate the transition as much as possible? I’ll try with an example:
I’ll an exchange and I see that transparent transactions now cost much more. I’m pissed off because I feel forced to integrate z transactions. How does the zcash people make sure that the exchange is not pissed off / least possible pissed off? Could we dedicate an integration team?
Could the incentive to switch include a free/proactive technical support to integrate z transactions?
Could we have a public document pointing to exchanges saying:
Hey, keeping using T transactions will cost more over time but you could do quite some savings by integrating Z transactions following this doc (and with free support from us) that would in the end save you this much. We should also support with the regulatory part of it too. (Is there available doc about the regulatory part of integrating z transactions?)
1 Like
I also wrote about this concern earlier, and I believe that while zcash is not indispensable, it is easier to get rid of it than to maintain it, but seeing how people want to change something in spite of everything, I think that sometimes it is better to break and do it again than to try to do that. what you don’t like. I also think that this venture will simply be stopped by the owner of the trademark, because there is an attempt to change the concept, which must now be approved by two parties (in fact, all the same, of course). This topic also arises every year, just as every year one of the countries prohibits zcash on their exchanges, this year is just a little worse than others.
In the long run prohibition shouldn’t be the main concern (although it can affect price in the short term). Monero suffered the same prohibition but have not fallen 20 steps on the market cap rank. I know I started of by criticising your posts, which I to some extent apologize for.
Zcash is in need of changes. The team must make some big announcements soon. The window of opportunity is closing.
1 Like
We all know privacy is as important as the concept of decentralisation and in near future such issues of transparency would be as bad as holding fiat currency in our hands and the future would all be about privacy and decentralisation
I believe nobody wants to see who holds what in their account history even the transaction from z to t vica versa reveals the future z to z transactions of that particular user from the block counts.
The foundation layed by satoshi nakamoto was completely based on privacy and we should focus on increasing more privacy and future decentralisation… I would not prioritize scalibity for now perhaps we have enough time for scaling after the taddress is depreciated.
Let’s work on making privacy better 
2 Likes
After several threads and long discussions, I’m still not convinced there’s a valid use case for transparent addresses within the Zcash network.
If there are folks who need to use transparent addresses for some reason, they can use another blockchain, not this one.
I understand the reason (although I disagree) that @zooko decided to include transparent addresses to the chain. The original idea was to make it easier to integrate since Bitcoin tooling was already in place and it could be reused with minimal effort. Plus, Sprout was “heavy” and “slow”, with no tooling available.
In retrospect, it may have helped price speculators in the short term because it allowed effortless exchange listings, but eventually it hurt the project as it lost its identity.
We need to stop hurting our users’ privacy and finally take a stance to remove transparent addresses ASAP.
5 Likes
Agreed! Adaptation from exchanges (and decentralized exchanges) and wallets will follow. This is absolutely crucial for the survival of the project.
1 Like