Anyways, it is unproductive to discuss further. My core critique, whether you accept the others or not, is that this project is not appropriate for Zcash.
However, I believe that if your idea has solid ground, and you can prepare a solid, non-AI-looking proposal, you can apply to the Open Technology Fund, a US government arm that regularly funds these projects: https://opentech.fund/
They can provide grants upto $200,000 at a time, with extensions to do upto a million dollars in 2 years, having the budget of, well, the government.
I think that’s a fair distinction: the current implementation is the L4/TCP-first transport, while the broader network-layer work is what I’m proposing to develop and validate. And I agree that SHPH does not have anything remotely comparable to Tor’s anonymity set, I’m not claiming that it does. The point of the project isn’t to recreate Tor’s anonymity network; it’s to develop and independently validate a different transport/overlay primitive that can be deployed and tested in censorship environments. If that doesn’t provide enough incremental value for Zcash after the comparison and integration work, then that’s a valid reason not to fund it
Honestly, that’s fair. I can see why you’d consider it a better fit for OTF than Zcash right now. The censorship-resistance problem is the reason I started building SHPH in the first place, and being in Iran has made that problem very concrete for me rather than theoretical.
I appreciate the feedback either way. And yes, we’ve already applied to OTF, so hopefully they see the fit too.
“We’ve already applied to OTF” You do know that “grant double-dipping”, or getting funding from multiple organisations without disclosing that you’re doing so, is very bad-faith and would likely lead to a rejection from OTF when they do due diligence?
Fair point on the need to disclose overlapping funding absolutely. But applying to multiple funders isn’t itself double-dipping; the issue would be accepting funding for the same deliverables without disclosure. If SHPH receives funding from more than one source, also we have acknowledged that in the form we have applied.
Just some advice: you should absolutely disclose concurrent grant applications in each application, and that also applies to summaries of the application like your original post.
Hey guys and the whole community of zcash, I’m really sorry that this application started with “25” back and forth between me and the other guy, This place could and should have been an actual place for questions, I mean technical ones and also actual problems with the code also critics, anyways, I hope you all have good day, best of regards, mori.
Would definitely have to apologise for not noticing that except none of the links in your post actually work, including the Github link. I did point that out in my very first post. Otherwise I would have seen it in your Github issue.
This remains a development release. The measurements are local or CI-hosted and should not be interpreted as proof of Internet-wide censorship resistance, anonymity, production readiness, or resistance to state-level DPI. SHPH has not yet received an independent security audit.
The intended Zcash use case remains an optional, self-hosted transport for lightwalletd operators, full-node operators, wallet backends, and community services in environments where direct connectivity is unreliable or blocked. SHPH is complementary to Tor and is not intended to replace Tor or provide an anonymity set.
Thank you for your submission. After consideration from ZCGand sufficient time for the community to provide feedback on the forum, the committee has decided to reject this proposal.
The committee appreciates your grant submission efforts and encourages you to continue as an active member of the Zcash community going forward! Meeting minutes.