I was trying to give you a compliment. Please accept that instead of pretending you care as much about Zcash private usage as I and other shielded only purists do.
I never supported the introduction of Unified Addresses in the first place (which are causing privacy problems now). It is also clear we have differences of opinion on what should be done to guarantee the continued usability and privacy of funds in legacy shielded pools.
We also have or had differences of opinion on other areas that discourage community involvement from those that value privacy the most (such as historical trademark policy and kyc rules for community members to join certain communities or levels of project funding).
For a number of reasons I am not surprised to hear that there has been no exchange adoption of this despite all the work that was spent on tooling to make things easier for them.
I agree that making improvements to the t address/UA issue now will be easier as a result.
actually not enough work was spent in a timely manner to provide the corresponding tooling so this is inaccurate.
Honestly, the tooling was lacking. much of this was discussed in the NU5 retrospective meeting for which I can’t find a link for at this very moment. If someone can provide that for me I will appreciate it
ps: if you are asking “why was that?” the answer is “sandblasting”
Privacy maximalists would prefer to use legacy Z addresses rather than the flawed UA address implementation by Zingo labs and other wallets that leaked transparent transaction data.
Thank you for helping Zingo fix this major privacy leak but it never should have happened in the first place
To be clear this topic is about removing t addresses from unified addresses, not removing t addresses from the protocol.
For the former you can simply generate a new UA without a t-component. It will generate a “new” address (in the sense it’s a different string) but everything else works as before.
Additionally there is some discussion about creating a new UA format that actualy forbids
having t-component. This would require all Zcash software to update in order to recognize the new format (not a complicated change, but still a change…)
This seems right to me. Ever since @emersonian clearly outlined the privacy implications of bundling t-addresses, I’ve been eager to eliminate them from UAs.
Anybody, (e.g. @Tsupportisharmful ), available to spec out the protocol change (e.g. as a ZIP)?
The downside is the entire ecosystem having to migrate to Yet Another Address Format when they’re just starting to migrate to UAs.
Honestly at this point I’m happy with just soft-deprecating t-addresses in UAs by simply not including them (and maybe deprecating that possibility in the SDKs).
