I’m fairly convinced we should not force z2z usage right now. z2t and t2z are the reality stemming from lack of exchange support. And they still provide meaningful, if limited, privacy.
However, we should make every effort to kill t2t usage (modulo auto shielding). The only legitimate case I have heard for it is custodial. That changes somewhat with frost threshold signatures and ledger support. But exchanges have more use cases for custody, so we need to support that.
But we don’t need to support it in wallets or non-exchange developer facing SDKs. We don’t need to spend time on UX for it. And we should make it go away. Doing so saves us time and effort.
I think a number of people are worried ECC doesn’t actually want taddrs to go away. Seriously deprecating t2t transactions in most wallets and sdks makes it clear that is not the case. Is there any reason not to? Note, “it makes taddrs a second class citizen”, which Zooko has said in response to such efforts, is not it. Quite the opposite, the entire point of Zcash is to make twitter for your bank account a second class citizen.
That is very much not the strategy anymore. I can’t tell if that is Zooko saying random things (as he is want to do) or that was the strategy then. But it certainly isn’t now.
Building tech products for my entire life: average user don’t make the best decision unless you present it to them & make it trivial:
so while this is true, it won’t work: https://twitter.com/zooko/status/1284956301299036161
Hope Zcash community can force ECC/ZFND to come up with a timeline to deprecate t-address or at-least ban transparent transactions. It’s time for others to rally if they believe it. There is no better time for it.
Looks like that user used a T address to store their funds, sent them to a Z-address and then sent the same amount back out, making the amounts easy to link. A known bad practice.
Or perhaps it’s even simpler than that, has Money Knowledge published his Trezors T-address somewhere before? Then it could have been some searching through web history that showed the old address that they have since taken down.
I would be curious to know all the exact details. A few snarky tweets don’t explain much.
The user posted just a hash of the one shielded transaction. The task was to find the user transparent address, used earlier to store the funds on that Z-address.
I knew, I must to reverse through previous blocks, and find some T to Z transaction, which which might look like an donation amount. So one by one, excluding these to big to be donation IMO I found matching T-to-Z tx a few blocks earlier.
Interesting, thanks for the explanation. Sounds like they store thier larger funds in a T-address then tried to use a Z-address as a cover before sending the donation.
Takeaways:
Don’t do long term storage in a T-address. If they had made the T-Z Transaction more than a few blocks/minutes before they made the Z transaction then it would have been magnitudes more difficult if not impossible to find. Store in a Z, not a T.
Don’t publish your TXIDs for everyone to see and correlate with you.
Users are already free to only use Z addresses and have the best privacy available. If we removed T addresses before it is time all exchanges would drop Zcash and the value would plummet. I seriously question people’s motivations when they recommend it. If you already have funds in T addresses, move them to Z addresses in a way that hides the originating address(es) and then the point is moot. IMO, Z address wallets are not even fully mature yet. In a year we should rediscuss this.
This is conflicting with z-addr wallets being mature, right?
We are going to be making same conversation a year later. What I’m asking is a simple criteria for making these protocol level changes.
What does “it is time” mean? btw I’m not proposing to ban t-addr or even ban t-t transactions “now”. I’m asking for ECC/Zfnd’s official timeline. It is important for community to know.
Can we define what “maturity” means for Z-addr wallets, so we push to fill the gaps (via funding/grants).
This seems like a chicken & egg problem. Exchanges don’t care about upgrading unless it somehow makes them money (or stop from losing money). We can set a criteria based on z-addr adoption among exchanges.
I can also make a point that if potential users continue to see “99% of zcash is not private” articles, memes & tweets then ZEC can potentially plummet in value because of low user adoption/growth.
Indeed, but not if they’re using a hardware wallet. The community is still waiting on Zondax to finish their work for the Ledger Nano.
Regardless, I’d like to see leadership and commitment from some party on how to move forward, not simply guidance on how to make the best of our current circumstances.
