Thanks. I missed this. Is there anything in the works for Trezor?
Has anyone taken Pavol up on his offer?
Maybe we’re closer to a tipping point in shielded use/adoption than community members realize (perhaps after shielded hardware wallet use is possible) and it’s just not evident/articulated to the community well enough.
I see you <3
The use of a secure hardware wallet will be rare among users and will bring absolutely nothing, a useful function but too expensive for the vast majority of people in the world.
Maybe true for folks who prefer the simplicity, efficiency, and cost (free) of a mobile wallet like Nighthawk. But I think it’s hard to argue that hardware wallet support for the privacy features of Zcash is NOT one thing that is holding shielded adoption and this community back.
I think it’ll be interesting to see how shielded adoption balances out just with the onset of shielded support via hardware wallets.
We’ve been talking to Stick. He needs funding to make it happen. I hope they’ll apply for a ZOMG grant now that it’s up and running.
The Ledger work was with a 3rd party developer, Zondax - we’ve been working with them on reviews and testing. I believe Ledger needs to add Ledger Live support and put it through a security review before they can officially announce support.
The wallet comes out and nothing changes, let’s see if this is really holding back adoption. I believe that z translations are not common for reasons: 1) most do not need it now (and this is not why Monero is popular) 2) It is difficult and many consider it dangerous 3) Many simply do not know about this opportunity and what it gives (there will be advertising on the Internet and TV and this item can be deleted)
Thanks for posting this chart. I wish this were available via a resource that is not paywalled. I’d watch it regularly.
I asked them about exposing that data for free but they aren’t interested at the moment. We are exposing a monthly update here: Zcash Metrics - Electric Coin Company
Bookmarked. Thanks Josh!
I like to count everything. from January to December 2018, a 4-fold increase (100-400) - this is without mobile wallets, without choosing wallets on PC and secure exchanges. from July 2019 to November 2020, an increase of 300k (400-700) but already with available options. I’m not talking about 10 times growth in 2017. As a percentage of the total number of coins, you said it doesn’t matter. We see that the dynamics are decreasing from 10 times to 1.75, and what ANOTHER growth can be expected, there is a slowdown, and now the conditions are several orders of magnitude better.
As far as I can know, exponential growth does not look like this (there should be a long period with minimal growth and then a sharp increase), the growth here is almost linear (+250 thousand per year excluding 2019)
If you run a node, getting the current value is as simple as zcash-cli getblockchaininfo:
"valuePools": [
{
"id": "sprout",
"monitored": true,
"chainValue": 109830.25504433,
"chainValueZat": 10983025504433
},
{
"id": "sapling",
"monitored": true,
"chainValue": 629358.02086758,
"chainValueZat": 62935802086758
}
]
Thanks! Verified on my node just now.
I would like to hear the official comments of the ECC on the failure of the plan “All on ZEC” in 2020, namely the paragraph Expenditure and strategy, which states that “next year (2020) expenses will be increased to 1 million per month, most of which will go to salaries for employees who create technologies and provide popularization, which I see in fact at the end of the year: Costs have not been increased but reduced to an average of 550 thousand per month at the end of the first half of the year, instead of the declared 1 million on average. What criteria is used to evaluate popularization, if distribution to stock exchanges, then I think that this is not enough, why does ECC think otherwise? In what ways were the efforts that were to be doubled?
There are a lot of options to play with in between disabling t-addresses altogether and the status quo. Like delaying t-addr transactions or adding additional “opt out of shielded pool” fees. These are explicit incentives affecting the choice between t-addr vs z-addr where both are available.
At some level it’s all about software defaults and norms, not strict protocol requirements. Even if t-addrs are disabled, you could use z-addrs but “opt out” of privacy by publishing view keys for every address you use. This is possible with monero too. But it’s inconvenient enough and there’s no software support for it so no one bothers. This relative presence or lack of software defaults is kind of an implicit incentive one way or the other.
Framing idea in terms of UDAs: t-ZEC are basically like wrapped versions of ZEC that happen to be guests on the same chain. This view maybe makes it more clear that t-ZEC is useful for privacy only to the extent it brings in more trading partners for folks using shielded ZEC
First, we need to find a developer willing to work on the feature. Then a developer needs to submit a grant. We’ll happily review any work coming out of this, but I don’t feel it makes sense for SatoshiLabs to apply for the grant, since we are not going to do the work.
Anyone you might recommend/would you be willing to introduce?
@jleni once z Zcash ledger support is completed, would you be interested in Trezor support for z Zcash.
More complex a product or solution is less users will use it (because they have no idea about its implications):
IMHO, t-addr does more damage to Zcash than anything else (even trusted setup, I think that’s second most pressing issue). No one (excl. developers & ppl directly involved) has any idea to how to use Zcash in a privacy preserving way.
More simpler the design & product, you get more engagement, love & usage from users. t-addr, z2t, t2z, t2t etc is unnecessary complexity in the core product.
So we need to make zcash dead simple by killing t-addr 
What does the poll ask? Who is it intended to reach?
In my opinion, the best way to know how much support there is for shielded ZEC is by looking at how much ZEC is in shielded pools. This is because it directly matches the existing market (by definition).
One drawback is that it is a lagging indicator, not predictive. By contrast a poll can ask people stuff like “if X happens in the future would you do A or B?”. However, I put little stock in what people say they will do in the future, especially compared to where they put their money in the present.
So I prefer to focus on existing shielded usage, where users have an option, and then find ways to increase that usage.