Yes. The Electric Coin Co literally can’t force anyone to download and run the software that validates a blockchain that contains Halo 2 proofs. The best we could do would be implement it and upload the software to GitHub. Then either we would have a “Network Upgrade” situation, like with Overwinter, Sapling, Blossom, and Heartwood, where everyone chooses to run it and to share the resulting blockchain, or else we would have a “Friendly Fork” situation, like with Canopy-and-Ycash, where there are two blockchains with a shared history but with two different feature sets, and people can use one or the other or both.
sorry I’m new, I try to have my say. Surely you have already talked about it and I am satisfied with a short answer:
I believe that the power of privacy is better than privacy.
The problem is that:
from a transaction z we can arrive at the first transaction t. if you brilliant minds solve this, that’s it.
sorry my english sucks.
Ty bye😊
1 Like
to be clear, ECC would never write code to deprecate t-addr or t2t right?
We definitely have not said that! But the writing-the-code part is not important. That code is already written! Someone could just copy the patch from ARR Chain.
@zooko I think you and @dontbeevil are talking past each other. ECC,ZF, and the rest of the community, can take positions on what zcash should do. And what its principles are. That we should do Halo is such a position one could take (and ECC has). Deprecating taddrs (either eventually or immediately) is another position one could take.
You can’t avoid taking a position on one by arguing you can’t make anyone do anything and then take a position on the other. It rings hallow.
3 Likes
Was asking about Zcashd
No one has ever said that it is necessary to force the end user to download what someone else needs, it has always been in what direction the official wallet from ECC and ZF will move! If ECC releases the next wallet without T address support, what is needed for such a solution? And in general, what is needed for recommendations from official developers to appear that all software will support only Z addresses from a certain moment? (the translator seems to distort the essence - I will try to rephrase- I mean that T addresses will not be rejected they will forever remain in the code as long as there is at least one zec at such an address but the wallet that is produced can only use the z address in full starting from the spring of 2021 during the activation of the update (example) and T addresses can only be used to view funds and transfer to the z address Who does it depend on that the official wallet will do this?)
What would the owner of the trademark officially say that this is exactly what ZCASH is and not his plug, of course. Who is behind this decision (zcap, twitter poll, firum, you or ZF)?
1 Like
I just want to make it clear my personal stance: deprecate t-addr one year after shielded wallets & multisig is ready. You don’t lose money if you stash zcash in t-addr, you just need to move it to HALO address.
What people want to do with their money is totally up to them. Nobody can force them to do anything, But if (for example) the CAP, the Foundation and the ECC agree to drop t-addresses and release zcashd and zebrad with z-address support only, then, effectively this is it. Sure, anybody can fork and keep using the old chain. But, let’s be realistic here, who will support this fork in technical terms? If the ECC and the Foundation don’t support it, then it doesn’t really matter who wants to keep using it because the chain is dead from a development standpoint. And, to be clear, that fork with t-address support won’t be called Zcash obviously. If folks want to use t-addresses, there are so many chains that do transparent much better than us. People have the option and power to use those chains today. But this chain, called Zcash, is all about privacy and t-addresses are a thorn which we need to agree to remove at some point. Or if we agree to keep them forever, then be open and clear about our privacy narrative.
5 Likes
I want to make sure everyone reads that and we don’t loop back on “but we need taddrs now.” Because that would be a very good (and disingenuous ) way to ignore the important point @anon16456014 made.
4 Likes
I don’t think it’s about forcing anyone to not use t-address. Like you said, people are free to fork. However, IF CAP, ECC and ZF can agree to deprecate t-addr sometimes in the future then we can be sure that the chain called Zcash will not support t-address indefinitely. A logical choice for a community committed to privacy.
And to be clear, I do not support removing t-addr now. I understand that t-addr can serve a lot purpose in these early days of Zcash.
Looks like the matter of t-addr will be defining for Zcash in the 2020s.
1 Like
Everyone in the thread seems to roughly agree on the following goal:
- increased usage of shielded addresses is the outcome that matters for real privacy
We might disagree on a factual prediction of whether discouraging t-addr would result in lots of people switching to z-addr and acting as a forcing function for z-addr development or whether it would have the unintended effect of making z-addrs worse because t-addr users leave completely and t-addr software ceasing to work altogether. There could be an ideal.
Making z addr easier and cheaper to use is unambiguous that it will help. Discouraging t addr could be helpful too. But would be a mistake to think discouraging t addr use is a substitute for making z addrs better.
Slight topic variant: policy questions about discouraging t addr could actually be a good fit for futarchy, since there is agreement on values and disagreement on predicted outcomes conditional on the different choices
http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html
3 Likes
Actually, that was’t the debate above and I think we need to stop gaslighting people by pretending it was.
@anon16456014 put it very clearly.
That was what I was getting at in the “Resetting Zcash” thread.
We need to acknowledge there is a disagreement on the principle of the issue (as opposed to how fast we need to get rid of taddrs, which yes, should be slow). Then we can see that the people on the other side are in the tiny minority, and then go about the rest of what you said. But you can’t do disagree and commit without acknowledging the disagreement.
3 Likes
I’m saying the extent to which t-addrs are bad, it is entirely due to their effect on lowering z addr usage.
As a thought experiment, if we adopted some hypothetical policy that brought t addr usage to zero, and also cut z addr usage in half, that would be net bad for privacy right?
A better analogy than “thorn” is “crutches”. You want to improve so you dont have to rely on crutches. But they’re helpful, not directly harmful. You might hate the crutches if they’re a symbol of not being able to walk on your own. Getting rid of the crutches is a forcing function and motivator to commit to walking and can be an important part of the healing process.
1 Like
Again, you’er shifting the debate and not listening to the people in this thread. The question was, to put it in your analogy, whether we should ever get rid of the crutches (never mind when, how, or how quickly).
And there manifestly is disagreement there (and IMHO also a massively clear majority view). So by coming in here and saying “we all agree on [something that wasn’t the debate]” you are doing the voices here a disservice. Because until we acknowledge the disagreement and disagree and commit, it won’t be resolved.
2 Likes
“Resetting Zcash” is a metaphor that implies “resetting the mission”, as it is the mission which represents the project’s externalized ideology of self governance, and because the founding cryptographers were inherently privacy-maximalists, that ideology should supercede the existing one. It would be, from that altered stance, that the governing act to decide on whats best for the less-informed individual is self-justified and I protest this.
Thats fine, we can decide either way. Zcash is a community run thing. But we need to acknowledge there’s actually a philosophical/moral disagreement and we need to decide.
And we need to be honest about what the debate is. I don’t know how many times I can keep quoting this:
1 Like
It is not possible. Amount of shielded ZEC goes up (because t users move to z-addr). With the same logic #of z2z goes up.
On the contrary, it is possible and the thought experiment is useful. A selling point of Zcash is that the anonymity set is the total set of all z2z transactions from the beginning (and therefore the anonymity set continues to grow over time each time a z2z transaction is made). So an argument can be made that a system with t-address support and a large number of z2z transactions is providing more privacy to its z2z users than an alternate system without t-address support but fewer z2z transactions.
2 Likes
We need to discount users who use z-addr as a passthrough right?