Wouldn’t it be ideal if Ren uses z-addr & integration is simple?
REN came into picture here when I asked why we need t2t when z2t & t2z is possible.
What costs are you talking about? so we’re clear.
Do you agree we’ll have more users getting into Zcash if they believe Zcash is private? While you are here, what do you think is the ideal state in the current situation? what do you expect to happen.
Wondering why ECC worked with Gemini to support shielded withdrawals, when users can do t2z if they want to store ZEC in shielded pool. cc @zooko
Well, that would mean that Ren itself — the DAO/smart-contract/network thing that holds the ZEC — has privacy about the ZEC it is holding instead of transparency. For situations like that, where there’s an organization or a DAO/smart-contract holding other people’s money, it might be better for it to have transparency instead of privacy. That transparency means that anyone who can sync the Zcash blockchain can inspect Ren’s current balance and incoming and outgoing transactions. This could be useful to quickly detect if Ren has been compromised or is insolvent, or to gain assurance that Ren is still sound.
So, although there could be some details that I haven’t thought through that could change my mind, my current belief is that it would be better for Ren itself to use t-addresses — or else a future improvement of View Keys which added enough functionality that it could implement the same properties as t-addresses.
4 Likes
The cost in this example is that the ren bridge wouldn’t currently exist for Zcash users just as it doesn’t currently exist for monero users. Any extra friction beyond bitcoin style addresses can make developers choose to spend time on something else.
I agree there is a perception problem about Zcash privacy and t addresses. This is largely due to a misinformation campaign by the monero community. I think the zomg could help here with some effective marketing.
3 Likes
I looked at their site a while ago and only saw withdrawals to t addresses. Of course you can always immediately shield t2z and maintain good privacy.
Ren can allow users to transfer directly to shielded zec right? still don’t see how t2t is required for Ren bridge
So your point is moot about t2t right? Ren can simply allow users to withdraw to z, done!
1 Like
IMO, a good compromise is keeping t-addr in medium term & kill t2t transactions. Keep t-addr for off-ramp & on-ramp. BEST OF BOTH WORLDS
2 Likes
Not sure it’s a moot point. Afaik ren currently uses t2t transactions. They could change it to only allow z2t and t2z I suppose, if we changed the protocol to disallow t2t.
Edit: this is only one example of an application that needed t addresses to get off the ground. Another one might need t2t in some way, but still have good privacy for users.
1 Like
I’m not sure what you mean by “t2t” here. I think it is usually clearer to think about the transparent or shielded nature of addresses rather than of transactions. My post above, quoted below, is about the question of whether Ren itself should have a z-address or should have a t-address:
Either way — whether Ren uses a t-address for transparency or a z-address for privacy, Ren’s users can store their ZEC in the shielded pool in order to get privacy. In this sense, the hybrid zaddrs-and-taddrs architecture is the best of both worlds.
2 Likes
point was about Ren bridge going away if t2t is gone. They could make simple change to support t2z.
1 Like
I was talking about killing transparent transactions. You were providing reasoning for Ren using z-addr. @aristarchus & I were talking about transparent transactions for using Ren
More friction creates less usage. If I’m a ledger user, I need to make another transaction to shield. And there are going to be wallets that won’t have autoshielding features.
This may be one of those cases where hands-on experience beats talking. How about everyone takes a break from this thread, goes and tokenizes some of their ZEC through RenZEC or WZEC, uses the resulting ERC-20 tokens, and looks at their transactions on blockchair.com to see what information about them is being leaked through the blockchain? 
8 Likes
Can anyone from ECC answer this?
1 Like
IF (BIG IF) Zcash should decide to keep t2t transactions around forever, in order to facilitate interfacing with other ecosystems, then it can still ensure that funds spend a minimal amount of time in the transparent pool by adopting something like the following measure at some point in the distant future:
The fees required for a t2t or t2z transaction shall depend exponentially on the age of the t-inputs, perhaps increasing 10 fold for each additional month. t-outputs old enough to have these fees exceed their value will become unspendable.
This “Transparent Demurrage” is pretty radical, but would succeed in deprecating t-addresses as a means of storing funds, not their use in channeling funds.
Let the t stand not just for transparent, but for temporary as well.
10 Likes
I like this. Thanks tromp for coming up w/ really simple & interesting solutions!! I still haven’t heard any valid argument to have t2t.
1 Like
This is pretty similar to proposal to charge higher fees for spending old UTXOs and Notes. One difference is that my proposal applies equally to old coins in the transparent pool and to coins in old shielded pools.
Well said. Even if we keep transparent transactions around, we can and should disincentivize them
This thread has gotten a little long and we we keep circling on off topic issues. I made a new thread on the principle of the issue and considerations of how we might get there