I noticed recently that there were something like 90 z2z transactions on a given day:
I thought that was really interesting! The thought that resonated for me was:
Hey! I'm significantly contributing to the z2z pool!
It turns out that there are several shielded wallet options that seem to “just work”.
Since that’s true, I have started using z2z transactions wherever I can.
Interestingly, many/most people I approach are pretty interested, and willing to try out shielded ZEC.
I wonder what fraction of the active voices in this forum are routinely using z2z transactions “organically”?
Should we do a straw poll, to find out how many nyms that are active on this forum use a shielded wallet to routinely conduct business?
I’d love to find out roughly what fraction of the “core” is using z2z routinely.
If we want to know what’s up with shielded adoption… maybe we should start here?
I’m using z2z transactions IRL on a regular basis (mostly with ZecWallet and Nighthawk Wallet, prior to that ZecWallet’s companion app). Funnily enough, sometimes it is harder to onboard (non-Zcash-er) friends who have t-addrs (e.g. through their hardware wallet) to z-addrs, than to onboard non-wallet holding friends to z-addrs.
But Zondax’s ledger-zcash-rs is seeing recent integration commits, so I’m hopeful that will get resolved soon Would be great if ZOMG could solicit a grant application from Trezor folks!
If you know any Trezor folks ( I believe @slush is involved with Trezor) then send them over to zcashomg.org to apply for a grant. As part of the ZOMG I would support hardware wallet Z-address integration!
For a long time, we have not been able to conveniently use Z-addresses due to the lack of a sufficient number of clients that support zaddr. But even now it is not convenient enough to do this. A couple of days ago, I tried to explain to a friend how to use zaddr and realized that doing this is terribly inconvenient.
Ok, To begin with, he needed to send coins from a mobile Jaxx to a mobile wallet that supports T-addresses and Z-addresses at the same time (the absolute majority of multi-currency mobile wallets do not have the ability to send to a Z - address-we cannot influence this within this forum).
The only wallet that supports both T-addresses and Z-addresses is ZecWallet. But my friend asked for a wallet with PIN or Face ID support (@adityapk00).
Nighthawk Wallet (@NighthawkWallet) and Unstoppable Wallet (@Dadybayo) have such input protection, but do not support T-addresses.
In turn, all exchanges available in Russia do not support sending to Z-addresses.
All these factors create such a puzzle that my friend has no desire to use Z-addresses at all. I tried to persuade him, but no.
So… The fact that we have 700 thousand coins in a shielded field is a great miracle. (@zooko@joshs)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s important to us and our community, who share the values of privacy and anonymity. We plan to add T-address support soon
That’s why as I posted twice now, I believe that if wallets had bundled T and Z address together (behind the same private key), it would have been much easier for the user. In your case, your friend could have sent his funds from the exchange from T to the T part of the bundled address, and we could imagine an automatic T to Z transaction between the Z and T addresses part of the bundle. All would be done in background.
No need for the user to think about Z or T address if the wallet makes sure that it gets into a Z address as soon as possible. Having 2 types of addresses is confusing. the user shouldn’t have to make the default t to z choice, the system should, and if necessary for the user to go to T, then he should actively make the choice.
I really like this idea: bundle addresses together and also automatically shield funds.
Bundling addresses together reminds me a lot of Signal. When I initially used Signal, most of my contacts used SMS (no encryption). But the primary reason I jumped on Signal was that it would work with any SMS contact but then automatically upgrade a conversation to full encryption if the other person also had Signal, so I didn’t have to switch between “the secure app” and “the normal app” to talk to different friends.
The drawback of that approach is that sometimes it’s hard to tell or predict (or explain to non-techies) how to tell when the connection is private. If the Zcash wallet ecosystem goes in this direction, we’d need a good UX norm of making the risks clear before the sender hits “send”.
OTOH, Signal now has millions of users. Another notable detail is that it had a built-in “invite your friend to signal” button.
So one vision is for shielded wallets to do the same. One problem is that there’s no (Zcash protocol) way to send your t-addr friend a message, so we need to think more about how to implement the “invite your friend to use shielded”.
I sometimes don’t bother to use the word at all when describing zcash to New Adopters. What I say is that “zcash is radically secure”, or that it has “cutting edge security”.
I then go on to explain that the zcash encrypts the sender, the receiver, the amount, and the message. This is how security is achieved. EVERYONE always understands/wants “security”. OBVIOUSLY you can’t have security if those things are unencrypted. When I describe what it is that zcash gives them (without bothering to invoke the word “privacy”) people always agree that those are properties that they want.
OK… actually, the above is not true… I have always actually used the word privacy… but next time… I will describe the same concept as security… and gauge the response.
Americans & EU citizens value privacy very much. That’s why they love Apple & hate Facebook. So, it should be easy to understand if that’s your audience.
No one goes to an ATM in a crowded airport or bus station, withdraws money, and holds it above their head while they walk around.
To do so would be ridiculously insecure. I don’t know much about Asian/African/South American/Australian culture, but I feel confident that folks from those cultures treat their personal security with a similar thoughtfulness to North American/Europeans.
I think zancas is onto something. I like the description of “secure”. I think it does a nice job of conveying Zcash’s fundamental value proposition of HTTP versus HTTPS without experiencing the regulatory mental anxiety associated with the word “privacy” or “privacy coin”.
The Signal analogy is great. I remember that time too.
Moxie has also always primarily focused on the user experience / making encrypted messaging as simple as possible.
It’s a good source of inspiration for people building on top of Zcash.
Of course it possible. But it’s not about what’s impossible, and that if we want to increase the number of users who want to use shielded addresses, it is necessary to create an infrastructure with the most convenient features. The less steps the closer.
Would be great if ZOMG could solicit a grant application from Trezor folks!