- Any change that jeopardizes sufficient funding due to a fall in price will not be implemented (in my opinion).
- As I said earlier, you must first agree on what we CAN do together or by initiation and what not, and only then spend time figuring out how to do better.
- There are a lot of problems that cannot be solved in my opinion and the transition to completely Z addresses is not one of them now, I understand that this is not a popular idea now, but first you need to reach the peak of popularity on what is, and only then, due to popularity, to jump above.
- We need to start recognizing the problem of image loss due to a decrease in the line in the CMC, because there cannot be a cool project in 45th place and in the future 50 and below, this is just perception (higher means better, more prestigious, more successful) if we need to increase users.
- crossing with point 4 is a price problem, the price gives financing and therefore the ability to continue when the market falls, I think this is the main problem now, because the market growth is probably in the middle or at the end, and in case of a fall, letâs say just for several years there will be no money for salaries (last year there was savings instead of increasing pressure for a reason).
- Working with private firms and large corporations to implement the protocol in the work of companies and a constant increase in users, which means the influence and gaining power that must be reckoned with in disputes with regulators, so that in the future the exchanges think what to clean and what is not worth it because it will spoil their reputation.
- A more understandable site for all funded teams (for example, on the ZOMG site I did not find a transition to grants (funding applications). ZF site is not on public resources such as CMC, this is all the more bad after so long.
- The declared work by country, it was not in 2020 and this is understandable, but why it was not in 2019 and earlier is not clear, but after all, they promised, zcash should be a global project and not for one uvartala for posts in the media.
- Also, the project is still a project of one person, again which contradicts the statements and this is not just a problem, but the essence of many other problems.
- Stimulation of the transition to z addresses (there are a lot of ways without changing the protocol and even more with a change, for example, you can simply increase user awareness through training and popularization within the framework of the prestige of using Z, you need to find out what suits the user better and give what he needs, this is the principle of conquering the market), again, it is enough just to make T addresses to view the balance and transfer to the z address within the same wallet, but only after understanding that this transition will not stop adoption, which means that the concept and intentions of ECC and the fund about such a transition are enough. just make an official bilateral statement that we will move in this direction because this is the goal, but with amendments to the requirement of the laws now and in the future.
PS: You have nothing to apologize for, you react correctly, the translation is probably to some extent to blame, and probably just different points of view, but I think that if you close your eyes to problems and wait, it will be no better than understanding why it is not getting better and fix it.
thatâs correct, but the T address is the easy way.
And unfortunately, it is usually the easy way that wins next to the best but more complex way.
Thatâs what I think we should keep in mind: letâs make it as easy as possible to use z addresses as it is to use T addresses.
2 Likes
We can guide the exchange to help with zaddr adoption rather than transparent as gemini support and also monero is also on many exchange so we should just help the exchange to support the zaddress and guide them to setup rather than increasing fees⌠Zcash is great and zero knowledge is amazing if adopted the right way but not with transparency because that actually deteriorates zero knowledge protocol⌠Zero knowledge is proven to be the strongest algorithm even better than monero so we should start with the adoption of zaddress and with some huddles but eventually those who understand the vision should be with the protocol and not the transparent model that hurts the future adoption.
We can also say that we cannot direct the exchanges and force them to do something differently than it is easier for them, so this is just guesswork. Raising awareness when working with Z addresses is the main thing, and if T addresses help zcash stay on exchanges, then in fact it is not even a problem now, which is better than ZCASH without many exchange sites, but completely Z, or now, as you can see, it is arguable that it is better in another way. T addresses get in the way only when people do not know how to use them, and trying to do only Z may not solve this problem, but simply create another - the absence of users.
I see a universal solution for all parties: A statement of intent and goals that someday we will only have Z if the law allows, increasing the popularity of Z private transfers, attracting new users to any transfers and further campaigning for Z. With this approach, we will not scare off the exchanges and scare regulators, we will reassure some users and the exchanges will remain in the system.
2 Likes
As of right now I would say the threat to Zcash is existential. Itâs not that I am a pessimist but more of a realist. I maintain my point from another thread that the community is in need of optimism, but for that to happen changes must be made. Salaries is not the main problem. In fact I think that cut-downs should be made â companies in crisis must restructure. If they donât dare to make radical changes/announcements because they worry about salaries, then the fate of a slow fizzling out is sealed. Maybe, as the thread on âresetting Zcashâ indicates, the problem is that the company has grown in wrong directions and need to restructure in order to cope? Get some new people (and personalities), blow some life into the project!
1 Like
Iâve been writing about this for about 2 years, the problems are increasing and nothing is being solved, why no one says, everyone just either keeps silent or says that Iâm wrong and everything is fine. Iâm glad that we understood each other. I also donât know why there are no changes and the salary is one of the possible reasons, but when the price decreases, it already becomes an objective reason, and I am far from a pessimist, but a realist, there are problems and will be, they need to be solved in time, thatâs what I am talking about all the time, because I believe in the purpose of Zcash and not just a viewer.
1 Like
If users like you want taddress and donât want zaddress to be default then problems would forever exist and never be solved⌠The simple thing is to add zaddress as default for the future which is very crucial at this point rather than worrying about the salaries and what they need to doâŚall they did here was to add the proposal and wanted to know the view points not the story behind the scenes
I didnât say that I donât want z to be the default, this is not a problem at all, as I think at the current stage (if I understand the meaning of your statement correctly), Iâm saying why itâs impossible to refuse T addresses at the current stage, I donât say that I I want to say why I think that this cannot be achieved, if the problems are eliminated then it will be possible to achieve the goal of giving up T addresses, for example. In the Zcash project, the final word for the trademark owners and asking a question on the forum without clarifying the possibilities of future implementation is not entirely correct, I think it is possible to express an opinion, but I think that I am asking the right questions and expressing urgent problems, and not just saying "yes, I am for canceling T ". A simple thought experiment: what will happen if the forum decides that we need to abandon and come up with a rejection program that will suit everyone here and elsewhere, and the brand owner refuses to accept this concept? I believe that there will be a lot of dissatisfied people and this is no good.
I donât think that is sufficient at all. Decide a block height in a not to distant future (one or at the very max two years). In the meantime most work should focus on adaptation from wallets, exchanges, decentralized exchanges etc. Dare to make radical decisions!
Agree, but since we have T-addrs on the wild and in majority of the transactions, there has to be a strategy to dis-incentivize T-addr related transactions.
Phase 1 can be to disable t-t transactions. (e.g. By 2021 end).
Phase 2: disable z-t transactions. (By 2022 end)
1 Like
So I am writing about this, I did not argue at all that this should not be done, but it should be done taking into account the fears. First, make a statement, look at the reaction of users and collect public opinion, then we include in the Zip protocol which disables addresses at the block level.
2 Likes
Thatâs a long time frame which is not needed. Users will eventually adapt the new z to z chain. Cuz this is what zcash is all about and people using t to t donât really need itâŚ
Letâs not divert the motive perhaps Q1 2020 we can add these changes to make zaddress mandatory and remove taddress completely.
Maintaining regulatory compliance should be an objective as well. It seems like there has to be a way to maintain privacy; yet also regulatory compliance.
To get broad adoption it has to be viewed as a legal store of value. There are too many other options.
Reduce risk to investors
- Ensure regulatory compliance alongside privacy.
- Eliminate inflation risk
- Work to broaden the ecosystem. Ease of use. Safe. Possibly focus on getting get built into marketplace payment platforms.
People need to stop worrying about regulatory compliances, their salaries, their household work etc all that would be managed by ECC⌠Proposal was to understand the privacy matters thatâs itâŚ
I agree that making privacy the default is important. But my sense is that itâs impossible to achieve âprivate by defaultâ at the âz-address vs t-addressâ level.
For example: say two users are both using Gemini, but neither knows that the other is. Preventing them from using t-addresses does not protect their privacy.
- One sends shielded Zcash to the other, z2z.
- Gemini knows both the recipient and the sender of the transaction (because it knows which transaction was created by one user and then observable using the othersâ keys) but neither the sender nor recipient know this.
- A range of actors can compel Gemini to provide this information, hack Gemini, etc.
- Various parties now know both the sender and recipient of a transaction
- Neither party knows this. Both assume they are protected because they used z2z.
Meanwhile, at the wallet app level, itâs a lot easier.
- A wallet app can prevent people from using t-addresses entirely (Nighthawk already does)
- A wallet app can make z-address the default (Zbay already does)
- Wallet apps donât have to do KYC and store user info
- Wallet apps can warn users about the risks of sending to a t-address, while allowing users to.
- Wallet apps can still let users use t-addresses when it makes sense to.
- Wallet apps can automatically shield funds
- Wallet apps can guide users to fiat onramps that support z2z and have good privacy policies
- Wallet apps can build in DEXâs for a simpler and more private onramp from Bitcoin, ETH, etc so that users are only using Zcash in user-controlled apps and never messing with centralized exchanges or onramps using Zcash.
- Wallet apps can discourage unsafe behavior like using Zcash as a âpass throughâ currency.
- Wallet apps can encourage privacy-enhancing behavior such as buying large round numbers of Zcash, holding it for periods of time, and âtopping upâ randomly.
I support deprecating t-addresses eventually, but I think this debate can be a distraction, and that our focus should be on achieving maximum privacy within user-run wallet apps, since thatâs where user privacy flows from.
We do need fiat onramps, but we need to get user funds away from those onramps as quickly as possible with as few leaks as possible.
Itâs almost like, if we have DEX support so that users can seamlessly âdepositâ BTC or ETH into their Zcash wallet (converting it to shielded Zcash without touching the network in unsafe ways), we could stop worrying about exchange support entirely.
6 Likes
I know this is just an example but from my understanding of exchanges, if two users are on an exchange and want to send money to each other, wouldnât the exchange just do a database change (e.g. change the value being displayed to both users after the transaction) and not an actual blockchain transaction?
2 Likes
who does transfer to other users using an exchange address
And thatâs equivalently bad from a privacy perspective, right?
The âimportant to be private by defaultâ argument that this thread started with is all about protecting users from unsafe behavior.
So I could also say âwho does t2t transactions?â (A lot of people, apparently, and the worry is that some of those are expecting privacy.)
You have a point. There may be other solutions to the problem. However i guess many believed that Zcash would be an established privacy coin by now, with widespread support among popular wallets. But maybe people stopped believing? A radical/big announcement could get peopleâs hope up.
For some reason all news regarding Zcash have stopped. The latest âbuzzâ on the homepage is from may 2020 and the latest ânewsâ is from 2019. Things appear to have halted, although I admit some things have happened (hardware wallet support and Gemini z-adress support). One can talk about technical stuff, and that is certainly important, but perhaps what Zcash need the most is some fire.