A modest proposal: squeeze out taddrs

I agree this change may be helpful from a marketing standpoint.

And it does seem that Monero’s success is due partly to fears about users accidentally using t-addresses.

But I think you could achieve the same thing by making a very private, reliable, and user-protecting wallet app for Zcash.

There is no autoshielding for ledger app, so users might end up sending from exchange straight to ledger address. We should discourage users from storing ZEC in transparent address for their own privacy.

Transactions happens in all blockchain people don’t care much about privacy now but later stage it would be crucial and would be important so the blockchain now needs to be privacy by default to secure peoples life in future.

We can have default protocol privacy:
Imagine zcash with both public and private transactions. But the public ones are built by adding extra data to the private ones. All of them have snarks in them. Then anyone who implemented support for the protocol, in the process, by default, would support private transactions. They could opt into not supporting or exposing them. But the default, with no additional work, would be supporting privacy.
The problem is we don’t live in that world, so we need to nudge people to support private.

The problem with the Zcash is nothing incentivizes or makes you support shielded.
I think we should incentivize it, give people a reason to change.

You mention wallets can support privacy. But wallets and exchanges need anudge to get zaddrs supported. The protocol can be a powerful tool for creating those nudges.
Another one would be to mark taddrs as insecure in wallet UXs. Though I should point out that when ECC devs prototyped that, they were asked to remove it from their wallet sdk.

4 Likes

Privacy by default is something important now example if I’m giving you 1 usd for a coffee you wouldn’t ask me how much money I have and had all my life nobody needs such information as this should be with the owner of the wallet and not to be shared with anyone. Personally what I have in my purse is my own business and nobody has right to check my history it’s personal that’s where privacy plays important role and transparent chain is what would be similar to fiat but much worse cuz the coffee shop owner knows your details and even if you use shielded address it could be tracked by transparent block block counts which you did in past.
The point should be changing to zaddress by default cuz no matter how many changes you do to fix here and there privacy would only be obtained by its default values and the world shall embrace it as they start using it.

1 Like

The long time frame is taken into consideration for gaining community support, starting the deprecation process and get everyone transacting in to the shielded pool. There is no harm in having extended time for the transition.

We also have to consider the technical and educational impact of yet another shielded pool - Pollard with addresses starting in zp and convince folks to enter t to zp directly. All whilst keeping away any sort of confusion around fee changes.

1 Like

A concept like this was proposed and evaluated for inclusion in Blossom. (As I recall, it was originally my idea.) Gordon Mohr’s objections to it, posted on that github thread, seemed pretty persuasive to me. Basically, constraining blockspace probably wouldn’t have the desired effect, currently, in the under-loaded state. I don’t remember what we thought would happen if we hit an over-loaded state. But, the intention of Electric Coin Co is to make Zcash scalable before we hit the overloaded state. Gordon argued on that ticket that imposing what he calls “demurrage” on t-addresses would be more effective. I think “demurrage” is basically the same as fees, as proposed in PRINCE — Privacy Incentives for ZEC and in proposal to charge higher fees for spending old UTXOs and Notes. #3693.

1 Like

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.

4 Likes

Hrm,
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 )

3 Likes

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.

2 Likes

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.

2 Likes

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:

7 Likes

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?