If it is more than a year old, then the additional storage fee is 1 zatoshi per block that the utxo or shielded pool has existed.
Such a penalty can be sustained for centuries on 1 ZEC though, so it’s somewhat lacking in force.
My proposal wipes out one’s balance within a year or so. That’s why I said it would only be activated in the distant future, when every ZEC owner has become fully aware of the nature of this deprecation, and the need to migrate away from using t-addr for long term storage.
Yeah, you could imagine a rule which started out totally minimal, like 1 zatoshi fee for the first year, and then increased gradually until after a few years it was substantial, and then after a few more years it meant that 100% of the value was gone, and we could then cure the technical debt by removing the functionality and eliminating all the accompanying development overheard and security risk.
I think the best precious property for zcash is that we have the choice . If we want to show my transaction then use taddress, if we want to hide then use the z-address. Bitcoin can’t hide it and other privacy coin can’t show it, however zcash have the both property. But the problem is that we should make it easier for the starters. That 's what should ECC do.
Yes, that’s intentional. The friction of having to repeatedly move funds will cause users to seriously consider migrating to z-addresses for fund storage.
Well, it’s easy to automate, let’s say for exchanges.
In addition, the exponential growth of fees is unexpected behaviour, people will lose their funds unexpected.
Let’s say I move 100 ZEC from exchanges (t2t + t2z). Public info is I shielded 100 ZEC. Even if I hold it there for an year & deshield 100 ZEC back to an exchange. Then do I get any privacy??
Of course. Over a year would have passed and I’m fairly certain that there would have been some other transaction that was exactly 100 ZEC.
But you probably already know the way to get the best privacy in this case is to simply break it up into two or three transactions when you withdraw from the shielded pool again:
100 ZEC T->Z, a long time period passes, few random Z->T transactions out would be extremely difficult if not impossible to correlate.
You’re right, imagine 1337 instead of 100, it increases the probability of linking the transactions due to unique amounts. There should be more education about this. With ML & data, chain analysis might be able to create probability model to create relations.
Without t-addr, there is no way with any amount of ML & analysis, you can do such tracking. Hence, why I support deprecation of t-addr & t2t in medium to long term after ecosystem maturity & shielded onboarding.
At a minimum, you will see privacy benefits, no matter how you think about this.
After reading zooko’s arguments in this thread it has become more clear to me that keeping t-addrs makes zcash readily/immediately extensible to the entire crypto ecosystem. Each coin has its own purpose for what people are gearing it towards functionally (forget the word cash). Therefore, if we remove the t-addr, then we remove the on/off ramp accessibility. Yes, everyone else could learn how to use our z-addr tech, but he argues that the learning process would take so long that the rest of the market would build without us and without the best possible privacy solution.
We can build an ecosystem within zcash that people can move in and out of more easily and faster than if we went full z2z.
There will never be a one size fits all coin/token/unit of measure in this ecosystem or the new financial world we are building. Value will transfer between pools of like-minded people.
If nothing else this post serves as an enlightenment for myself, as I historically have mostly been anti-t-addr due to the negative sentiment around “optional” privacy and how “little the chain is used” according to some prominent analysts in the cryptocurrency space.
So, I don’t support removing t-addr’s immediately. I do support discouraging use of them. I do support creating an environment and UX where z2z and shielded storage (edited due to dontbeevil’s comments below) are the standard for zcash. And I do support keeping t-addrs around for extensibility into the broader ecosystem until we think the community has enough knowledge to properly support z-addr integration beyond zcash (even if this takes 5-10 years).
Dontbeevils last post assumes not aggregating time or amounts between txs i.e t2z, next block z2z , next block z2t and the same amount give or take a few tx fees worth perhaps but even then it would still be hard to correlate if it were a common amount like 0.5 or 1 or something and you would have a reasonable amount of plausible deniability. The problem is with somewhat unique quanities doing that (dipping their toes as they say) like 21.47892 goes in and three blocks later 21.47872 comes out, yeah thats no good. Zcash isn’t a money insta-mat, there’s different ways to use it both with pros and cons so use your brain!
I’m with you @wobbzz! I used to be anti t-address… as a sort of reaction to the fact that they didn’t expand the anonymity set.
Now I am pro t-address, since I think that they help to on-ramp, expand the economy, and provide understood interfaces (per @holmesworcester 's point).
YAY t-addresses! The future of Privacy is through t-addresses!
I am opposed to disincentivizing, deprecating, or otherwise coercing folks to not use t-addresses.
(Coercion, bad. Options, good.)
People are smart… give them t-addresses, and z-addresses. Let them pick.
It’s leap frogging z-address not t-address. You can have z-address for on-ramp. Don’t confuse what we have vs what we could be. Don’t assume current state of things will stay as-is. Easiest paths don’t always result in success.
@zancas I don’t think pro t-addr helps in any way. What does that help?
I believe strong place of t-addr in Zcash has created perception problem which is most likely kill Zcash in the long term:
Two points that ring bell all over the place:
Best privacy tech (good)
Optional privacy (bad)
If you believe in t-address & “t-addr+z-addr” why should we even do auto-shielding in wallets, why do we need exchanges supporting z-address withdrawals, …? if a user wants z-addr, they can always move it right?
I hope you see the problem here. People who care about privacy & use Zcash may not know best way to use “taddr-zaddr” system to get maximum privacy benefits. Until recently, we all thought typical z2z is better than typical Monero transaction (Moneyknowledge0 twitter experiment proved it’s not).
“Use your brain” is not an answer we should give to users. “Dumb” users should be able to get privacy they deserve. More obvious something is, more usage you get.
