I don’t think that’s a good idea. People holding sprout funds are not mom and pop’s, or at least they are some pretty cypherpunk lovely ones. If you had Sprout funds you probably know your way down CLI road and turnstile them safely to sapling.
4 Likes
There are longtime community members savvy enough to use a CLI and run their own full node that care enough about privacy that they would prefer to keep shielded Sprout funds in cold storage until the time they (or their heirs) are ready to spend or sell them.
As you know there are privacy consequences of the turnstile process that some would prefer to avoid.
Of course cold storage remains possible without Ledger but not everyone will follow best practices (QubesOS air gapped computers, shamir secret sharing, stamped fire/water resistant metal in different locations, etc).
We should strive to make secure storage of shielded funds as easy as possible for the long term.
What cold storage support precedent do we want to set? Should ledger wallet users fear that one day Sapling and Orchard funds will lose ledger support? What sane estate attorney would advise a privacy advocate client (that preferred low maintenance storage) to use a ledger hardware wallet to store shielded funds for future generations in that scenario?
In terms of security, choosing the oldest pool is a poor choice all of that was discussed thoroughly in this thread in which you participated. Do you support deprecating Sprout?
The turnstile is the most private way of moving out of sprout at the moment. Although, I remember that at some point it was discussed that it could be possible to issue the value stored in the sprout pool as a ZSA and let its owners redeem it by proving its ownership. That way you could zSprout in the orchard pool instead of turnstiling to sapling.
anyway, it’s unreasonable to support sprout in ledger, also the proving times of sprout make it unfeasible to be ran on embedded devices such as hardware wallets, so this discussion does not even classify as hypothetical.
2 Likes
That would be a privacy improvement to the turnstile process!
With regard to Ledger specifically I agree with your point on this.
Sounds like privacy purists as myself will have to use a custom hardware wallet (air gapped device with more RAM) for offline transaction signing with Sprout funds.
It is brilliant and obviously, It was not my idea ahhahahaha
ps: privacy purist don’t use sprout in 2025.
2 Likes
Wouldn’t that mean that some organization holds the keys to release the sprout pool?
Hi community, do the last few posts in this topic here above implicate people like me who stored zec on ledger since 2017 need modified wallets to tranfer coins to a futureproof adress? Will there be a difference in ‘transfer options’ between coins stored on legder in 2017 and coins stored on the same ledger wallet in 2021?
That’s a good point. I think that the redeem mechanism should ensure that no other than sprout holders can redeem. So probably needs other mechanisms than the original ZSA design alone.
It would, but it would also be a huge amount of work, including security-critical circuit work. Who’s going to do it? I think it’s only remotely practical if we make writing secure circuits much easier and/or if someone is paid a large amount for it, and even then there’s a big opportunity cost relative to other things that could be done instead.
1 Like
Hi, do the dates of the exchange from btc to zec and the storage on ledger live account determine wether the coins are sproutpool today? Thanks for the reply in advance.
ledger has never supported shielded sprout ZEC
only transparent so far - so you are fine in that sense
2 Likes
If you had ZEC on Ledger since 2017 then you are likely in a transparent address, since Ledger didn’t support private addresses back then.
So the above talk about migrating or access to shielded pools doesn’t apply because your funds are in the transparent pool and not a shielded one.
3 Likes
I really don’t understand why we’re still supporting Ledger. Most of us here value privacy, yet Ledger failed us by leaking our personal data, including addresses, emails, and phone numbers simply because they couldn’t properly encrypt or delete it. That’s a massive breach of trust.
Now they’re pushing everyone to upgrade to newer devices. The Ledger Nano S was the last remaining wallet in their lineup without that highly questionable seed-sharing “feature” effectively a potential backdoor.
On top of that, their code is not fully open source. This lack of transparency makes it impossible for the community to verify what’s really going on under the hood. Trust in this space should be earned through openness not taken for granted.
And let’s not forget how they handled the Zcash community another red flag. Taken together, it’s pretty clear that Ledger is primarily motivated by profit, and it’s not out of the question that bad actors may already have influence inside the company.
We deserve better. Please don’t continue investing your time, money, or trust into Ledger.
3 Likes
tapping into the tragedy of the commons, it applies to any deprecation. Did you take a stroll through the sprout deprecation topic, or any other kind of discontinuation? There are people that will be annoyed and others that will be on-board with the change. That’s kind of how it is in all aspects of life when changes happen. It happened with the “Cypherpunk firmware” of Keystone too. We went “oh we are finally in a hardware wallet as a first class citizen” and then… BOOM. You need to install a special firmware in order to use ZEC in Keystone. 
I think that Zcash needs to be a global unstoppable internet money protocol. For that to be possible it has to be literally everywhere. Not every Zcasher will like every place. That’s fine. As long as everyone has options, Zcash will succeed.
6 Likes
Hi all!
I had a meeting today with members of Ledge Brazil (Ariel), where we discussed the possibility of creating a customized Ledger for Zcash following this integration (Shielded) as a global relaunch, BUT.. if there are ongoing discussions at a global level with @ElectricCoinCo , cool, but we are thinking to explore the option of implementing a lower quantity & customized limit specifically at the national in Brazil, because the quantity is smaller.
Today Ledger has ˜70% of the market share in Brazil.
I would like to gather any ideas on this topic! Thanks.
5 Likes
Exactly. 
1 Like
Not exactly the same thing. Ledger is basically forcing you to buy a new hardware when you still have a perfectly functionning one. You don’t suffer any fees from moving from Sprout to Orchard, you actually get something much better for free.
Also many believed that the Nano S was the only one immune to the Leger Recover shenanigans.
Yes… but. Think about it. That’s every appliance manufacturer in the world. 
My rationale is that at this very moment, Zcash has to meet people where they are if we want it to be everywhere and increment adoption. Financial Freedom is not only privacy, it is also choice and consent. If people have the possibility to choose, they’ll decide what’s the best hardware wallet solution for them.
3 Likes
@CharlesGuillemet One month has passed, have you any updates to share with us? Is the detailed proposal ready to be published? Thanks!
I received an update earlier this morning from Ledger. They confirmed that they are on track to release the fix this month for the issue causing ZEC transactions with Sapling and Orchard inputs to get stuck.
Once that fix is complete, they will begin work on integrating shielded support. That integration will be covered by a retroactive grant, which will be submitted after the project is finished. Additionally, there will be an ongoing maintenance and support agreement in place.
I’ll follow up and ask them to share more details with the Zcash community about what to expect going forward, and to publish a roadmap and proposal outlining their plans.
13 Likes