I am in the third group, but the wording is not the same as yours. I believe that T addresses should be in the protocol while they solve any problem or are in demand (here probably a combination with group 2).
In other words âwe should get rid of t-addr after âsome conditionsââ
Definitely group 2.
1 Like
Not really, the condition that z will replace t is not in my understanding as long as someone needs to use T, thatâs when T addresses are no longer used in a natural way of evolution and not forcibly, then they can be simplified from the protocol, call it group 4 if convenient, I think that you need to clean up when they cease to bring at least some benefit (example of DVD rom in a computer)
But you need to stimulate the transition with all your might, making z preferable and more convenient to use, as well as the companyâs PR advertising the advantages of zcash and z addresses in particular (unfortunately marketing does not work so far, which is very frustrating, because people see if they only see what other people write, and all these pictures and working with exchanges are just doing nothing, because whoever on the exchange can already read it himself, but you need to attract who has not yet entered the crypto).
1 Like
Its a 2 part problem; design basis, which is being built out as part of continued development, and regulators willingness to adopt these measures which presupposes a number of things, not the least of which being familiarity. There ARE people who work to educate those folks but they canât twist anyones arm about it.
Well, my overly simplistic, non-scientific and not sybil-attack resistant, to be taken-with-a-grain-of-salt poll implies that many Zcashers are not in favor of depreciating T-addresses.
But comments on the Tweet suggested that some users could be in favor if there was:
- Regulatory clarity/certainty
- Wider Z-addresses adoption (ie: exchanges/wallet)
- A long enough timescale
So, it looks like I stand corrected in my earlier statement that âYesâ would win a poll.
4 Likes
It looks like we dug up a hole for ourselves that deep, we may never come out of it.
It is very disappointing but, oh well, it is what it is 
2 Likes
Bitcoin adoption has increased since Zcashs launch but its pretty much the same situation now as it was then, saying its btcs fault is moot, no point. But I think if theres any project that stands a snowballs chance in hell in becoming that familiar thing, its this. Buck up! 
An idea that could help with user experience and adoption:
In the case of zcash the user has to either generate a shielded or a transparent address to store or receive funds the way he wants.
In order to send funds, he needs to check the nature of the address of the receiver to know more of the nature of the future transmission.
These are 2 steps the user needs to check by reading the first letter of the address. Itâs obvious for many, but maybe not for newcomers.
Why not generating a bundled address containing a transparent and shielded address from the same private key ?
On a wallet user experience, we could just toggle whether we want to send funds confidentially or not. Much easier than looking at the nature of the address.
From the receiver perspective, one address or QR code to share to cover both cases.
A simple button in the wallet like âsend privately : yes/no â could make it much clearer on the nature of the future transaction.
1 Like
Iâm reading a lot of hypothesizing from people on things that might go wrong if we aggressively deprecated t addresses.
But a couple of basic facts
-
the only differentiating feature zcash has is privacy. Itâs got the same supply curve as BTC and is ASIC mined. And right now, the case for Zcash looks kinda skimpy given that no one uses the one differentiating feature we have. Our one feature that makes us different isnât even used and you can tell by looking at the blockchain.
-
Monero does better than we do by market and usage with their exchanges and no support for transparent ( insert joke about my issues with Moneroâs privacy suggesting it effectively is transparent).
In fact, one of the reasons Monero does well is you canât easily look at its blockchain and tell who is just speculating and holding, vs who is using it. Privacy allows Monero to set its own narrative. -
Transparent uses are nice, but we would get far more private usage if we forced shielded and let you attach view keys to the tx to make it transparent. It would make shielded support mandatory and shielded the default (as you have to do extra work to unblind)
We can take our time getting to private only, making t2t a second class citizen first, etc . But Iâm perplexed that no one wants to even acknowledge thatâs explicitly where we need to go. We are a cryptocurrency whoâs only differentiator is we support privacy and weâre debating over whether transaction should be private.
Itâs like we expect there might be some other avenue to success. If only we have the right monetary policy, or ideals, we might get an ideological following akin to BTC. Or if only we have enough scale, we could actually handle the worldâs payments even if they are transparent (never mind blocks are mostly empty now). This wonât happen. Weâve had four years to do that and havenât. Zcash is about privacy. We need to embrace that and focus on it aggressively. And to do that we need to acknowledge shielded only needs to be a short to mid term goal.
11 Likes
All this would be possible if the work on zcash was not carried out from the money that is obtained from the sale of coins, right now ECC has in stock 7.1 million dollars while reducing costs per month to 585 thousand (they said that everyone in zec and themselves reduced costs from 750 but they planned to increase it to 1.2 million, it seems), this will be enough for exactly a year, provided the cost of zec is 75 dollars, again the market correction has not yet begun and zec is already 67, with an increase in costs and a constant price of 75 we get exactly 1 year of work (the same plan is all in Zec, which was supposed to work in 2020, but everyone is silent why it does not work), what do you think will happen if you make a sharp reversal and zec loses the market that feeds both the fund and the ECC?
The price will fall and there will be enough money without increasing costs for just one year, which can be done in a year of what could not be done in 4 years, I spoke about this situation back in 2018, the strategy to behave quietly will not pay off, now the situation is "either continue and we hope for a miracle or we spend money and switch to what money will bring right now! " I do not think that the fund and the ECC will support any scenario of aggressive abandonment of T addresses and the existing market in such a situation.
Have you looked at a price chart over the past two years? What do you think happens if things donât change around here and we go around not acknowledging that we need actual usage. And that comes through the one differentiating feature we have.
I agree, drastic action isnât needed, one can gradually phase things out. However, the community needs to be clear what our objectives our long term. And what ouur value proposition is. And this thread is evidence weâre not. Not because weâre saying take your time to phase out zaddrs, but because we canât even acknowledge thats a goal. Weâre all pretending there are other things that make zcash of use and value to people.
5 Likes
Zcash raison dâĂȘtre is to empower everyone economically and we can only do that by providing the best privacy to everyone.
I think most people are wary about Zcash adoption if we abruptly stop supporting t-addr. The pushback that I see here is from those who do not support depecrating t-addr âanytime soonâ.
Letâs do a ZF poll and make sure we understand what the community really want. This way, at least ZF can have an official line when it comes to the matter of t-addr. I doubt that there is even a significant minority of Zcashers who does not want to depecrate t-addr eventually.
Right, and the problem is, implicitly, they are asserting we will get adoption somehow else. We arenât getting adoption now. Why? Well part of that is we really our not playing to our strengths and differentiators. We have only one, privacy. We need to internalize thats the one thing we got.
That doesnât necessarily mean we deprecate taddrs now, it mean we have a plan and articulate a vision.
Itâs really easy for people to think Zcash isnât about privacy when 90% of users donât use the privacy features. One could get the impression this community wants to be a cryptocurrency first with ideological positions on monetary policy, governance, incentives, and community and a private cryptocurrency second. And, judging by many of the voices in this thread, theyâd be right.
4 Likes
I agree with you that now there is no concept that the movement is not going forward, in principle, it is not at all clear where it is going in terms of development, everything that is possible is developing, but this does not in any way affect the distribution and adoption, here you need to know exactly where move, previously they said some kind of nonsense about the need to unscrew the flywheel and it will go, but the further the less I understand where the project is moving, or rather it becomes clear that the project is needed to create certain jobs and while the project can feed people, it will not exist therefore nothing to jeopardize funding.
The project lacks trust on the part of users, the further the more mistrust turns out, people are afraid to buy, store and exchange (95 percent transparency). We need to focus on marketing that will fix this, what is being done now, but nothing (HALO, ZOMG, the transition of ECC to the management of a non-profit organization (although it itself remained a commercial organization)) - all this adds uncertainty in the future.
2 Likes
I agree. Letâs do a ZF poll then.
Iâm into Zcash for its focus on privacy. I donât need Zcash without privacy.
3 Likes
Ian Miers did better job than me in summarizing what I exactly have on my mind.
1 Like
To conduct a survey, it was necessary to develop a voting tool and approve it, otherwise the survey will again be questioned. This work was done - no! The community that everyone is talking about is absent, inactive (yes there was a dispute about this), at least because everyone has their own thoughts and the community should be based on a common idea, here I would say there are supporters and beneficiaries.
Absolutely well said. Without the privacy features of zcash it holds no value proposition for me. The fact that few are using it leaves me barely clinging on to this community.
1 Like
100% agree. I think the number one priority right now should be how weâre going to support and increase shielded use and adoption. This includes everything that comes with this heavy lift such as hardware support, exchange support, disabling t2t, but most importantly, having and articulating a clear vision for how we get from where we are now, to some measure of success of shielded use.
Exactly my use case. Privacy is the #1 thing it has been marketed on yet we canât even store shielded funds in a hardware wallet after all of the âimprovementsâ that have been made. Donât get me wrong, I appreciate all that the devs have done in support of Zcash to get us to where we are with usable mobile shielded wallets like Nighthawk. But, serious investors in this space are not going to store their investment on a mobile wallet. Where is the active effort by ECC/ZOMG/ZF to work with hardware wallet providers (or a new product designer) to come up with a solution for this community?
^^^ THIS is something we should be striving to achieve. Then the rest will follow as we see adoption and growth.
ZFNDâs ledger grant is making progress and is soon to be finished. It was stalled for a bit as the dev was out on parental leave by my understanding. ZF Grants - New Zcash Ledger App + Integration
But this goes beyond just features, or the technical road map. itâs a mindset issue.
3 Likes