Correct me if I am wrong.. but aren’t t-addresses integral to the NEAR-intents swap mechanism?
They are currently but with Zashi 2.4.8 next week it will be Shielded.
3 Likes
3 Likes
Reading this thread makes me feel good about Nozy Wallet privacy by default Merry Christmas
If we accept that ZEC is actual digital private gold (SoV), then the argument that PoS is not fair does not make any sense anymore. Let’s keep in mind, we can still have stablecoins with ZCAs. Actually now we’d have a reason to have ZCAs.
1 Like
We don’t accept that ZEC is only a store of value, no. ZEC payments are very much a critical part of the strategy, at least for Zcash Open Development Lab as I understand it. ZODLing is complementary to payments and in fact necessary for payment privacy.
I’m supportive of Proof-of-Stake, but not for that reason. I’m supportive because I think it can provide better consensus security and, in the long term, a path to lower consensus energy usage — which is important for environmental (and environmental regulation) reasons.
Note that prices can be denominated in a long-term stable asset (by whatever metric) regardless of the actual asset transferred. If asset swaps are easy on either side, then it is only necessary to agree on the exchange rate, and for the asset transferred to be stable enough in the short term that price movements don’t significantly disadvantage either side of the payment.
I think this will become a very common pattern: prices denominated in whatever the parties are comfortable with, but paid in ZEC.
1 Like
I have not said that either. I said that if ZEC is actual SoV then the argument some people have that PoS is not fair kind of does not make sense anymore.
That’s something that I found funny about the name winking at HODL. HODL is definitely not about spending actually. I didn’t want to break the mood and I’m sure you can succeed with that name, but just saying.
I support PoS for the same reasons you do and my main point was for people against PoS, they are running quite thin in arguments against it. It almost questions the point of exploring the PoW+PoS instead of going straight to PoS, but I don’t have too strong of a preference for now.
Good food for thought. I like it. Would require ZEC to be hyper liquid and bridged everywhere relevant. Connects to your frustration around NEAR Intents. And mine around the complete lack of interest around exploring the JAM potential, that actually connects with yours.
Yes, I know what the origin of HODL is:
Does anyone who uses it seriously mean they should be a “bad trader” who holds regardless of market conditions (or who talks about their holdings while drunk)?
We can’t magic up more money for anyone than they actually have — or more precisely, how much they have available to hold in a somewhat volatile cryptocurrency given their risk tolerance. It would be completely inappropriate to give anyone financial advice, and both inappropriate and ineffective to tell anyone what their risk tolerance should be.
What I see ZODL as meaning is that however much you have available to hold in a somewhat volatile cryptocurrency given your risk tolerance, you choose to hold it as shielded ZEC. (This is not financial advice, it is just describing a potential behaviour of a cryptocurrency user.) You can be a ZODLer in spirit and not actually have any money. You can be a ZODLer and be forced to sell at a bad rate because you have no choice. That’s happened to me and it sucked. From the position of being protocol and wallet designers, all we can do is to make it as easy as possible to hold ZEC.
2 Likes
Uh, hi that’s me! Rarely sold, regularly bought more since day 0.
Yeah that’s the path forward: redefining HODL to something more useful. Nice.
1 Like