I like the idea of a new t-addr storage system, but I think it’s a long term thing that will develop once we get most traffic away from t2t. We will then have a clearer picture of why people are intentionally using t2t transactions and if its needed.
Why do we think they are using t2t transactions currently ?
Are there any good metrics on how users store their coins? How many people use a Ledger/Trezor compared to desktop users or those who stay on the exchange. Guessing that would be why t2t transactions are so heavily used now.
IMO, we shouldn’t wait for exchanges to support z-addr. It is fine to lose some exchanges (are they worth having??) if they are not upgrading to use z-addr. There will be exchanges which will support z-addr.
Personally, I don’t like asking dev team for updates too frequently but it would be nice to know the update on this. Is zondox team on zcash forums?
Yes, I believe they are worth having. They provide important onramps, trading venues and liquidity. Users are able to move their ZEC off the exchange and to a shielded address fairly easily. In some cases, they provide other services that further mainstream adoption (custody, Gemini Pay, etc). I do believe that we’ll see more adoption of zaddrs over time.
Does ECC want/plan to deprecate (sending to) t-addr ? If not, then it is a different discussion. If so, what’s the timeline?
@zooko @daira @nathan-at-least
I feel like we should set up a vote to figure out zcash user sentiment on banning sending to t-addr over X months time period. Heart this if you agree.
When the infrastructure is in place it will be time. Once we get a few major exchanges supporting Z addresses. T-T transactions could be deprecated before that once seamless, bug-free, widespread auto-conversion from T-Z becomes a reality. We can’t really entirely get rid of T addresses until then IMO. We want Zcash to obtain widespread acceptance, not become a fringe payment system.
I understand that the ecosystem is complex, but is there at least a vague set of criteria under which deprecation would be formally considered?
Why do you feel that the protocol should mandate this for all users in all cases at this phase in project and this phase of crypto? Is this a question for ECC or the community?
Note: my personal perspective and objective is that we get to full zaddr adoption with optional zaddr and tx level disclosure, but that we’re playing a very complicated and high stakes long game, one that humankind has never seen before this point in time, and that we need to take a stand but how that’s done will be the difference between our ultimate freedom or subjugation. Topography, timing, resources, momentum … it all matters.
Zcash is effectively already a fringe payment system. I don’t see exchanges making strides towards enabling more privacy unless they are forced to. It’s logical if you think about their operations from a compliance, convenience, and time investment perspective. The same concept could apply to external developers although that’s being alleviated with the recent tooling that has been created.
Given that the ECC and other participants are focused on making ZEC a medium that allows for the private transfer of value (and information) it just doesn’t make sense to me to keep allowing unshielded transactions to this degree. There should be formal guidance on this matter even though it’s painful to address both politically and technologically.
I intended the question to be general to folks who plan for the future of Zcash protocol development. As to why the protocol should ideally mandate shielding, I’d note that the protocol already mandates many aspects of transaction structure, and these rules can be extremely helpful for transaction uniformity, mitigating metadata leakage, and otherwise helping users use the asset safely. As mentioned earlier and elsewhere, I worry that not proactively setting criteria and design intentions may reduce the incentive for large ecosystem players to encourage or require shielded-only operations, and that the resulting pool transitions may cause users to use Zcash in ways that leak more information than they perhaps intend. The continued development of tools for payment disclosure and address viewing can help users who wish to provide disclosure, and the use of these tools in a shielded-only world seems safer and more in line with a “privacy is informed consent” ideology.
And to be clear, I don’t intend to imply that some kind of immediate shielded-only consensus rule is necessarily appropriate for “this phase” of the project, only that more precise and established criteria (and very intentional discussions like in this thread) could be useful.
100% with sarang.
Regarding the timeline or intention of t-addr deprecation, it was a question to ECC/Zfnd.
Regarding vote, it was a question to community.
A small tweak in the right direction would be for all mining rewards to be paid directly to zaddrs, plus a high minimum mining fee for z2t txns. Doesn’t break things but applies gentle pressure to keep it z2z
(Premature optimizations, Bitcoin is aging and development on zcash really only centers around shielded usage anyways so if that’s not enough maybe come up with a replacement)
Anyway, my question still stands. While everyone hopes that large ecosystem players (like exchanges) will support and/or require shielded operations, should there be criteria for transparent deprecation at the protocol level? If so, what might that look like?
I think Gemini said they would support Z addresses in the future when they added Zcash. ECC should see how close they are to supporting them and if not what they need to support them. That would be a very big step in the right direction. Coinbase and Binance would then feel pressure to do the same.
Okay last comment and then I’ll see myself out of the conversation because I don’t understand, you’re literally complaining about how versatile Zcash is and how to go about making it less versatile, I don’t follow other projects so I don’t know how many other original (not forked or cloned from Zcash) protocols allow you to transact natively in two completely different but still useful ways though I’d guess not many, the state of the world continually disincentivizes using things that’s surrender your privacy without our helping it
We are working with the Gemini team on various things and have a great relationship with them. But I’m not at liberty to discuss any specifics beyond what they’ve stated publicly.
Josh, that’s great!
[Regd. Sarang’s/my comment] We just wanted to hear from ECC & ZFND (cc @acityinohio) on their official position on this matter. It will help developers, users, exchanges etc plan & prepare for it.