Principles for deprecating t2t transactions

Why would you think there will be delistings if t2t is disabled? exchanges internally can store ZEC shielded, or do t2z or z2t on customer funds. They don’t need to support shielded withdrawals (they can just do z2t). Unless I’m missing something, I don’t think t2t disabling will lead to any major delistings. Again, when we make the statement & communicate before/after with exchanges, we’d know more.

t2t disabling will make exchanges to move funds to shielded pool, but they won’t have regulatory issues as that has nothing to do with user deposits or withdrawals which can come from/to t-address (onramp).

I do not think that delisting will be 100 percent, I say that it is possible and this risk needs to be calculated, is there a guarantee that it will not be 100 percent for anyone? If there is a guarantee, I would like to hear it and think it over, I just say the possible variant of events, as always, based solely on my thoughts, but if I am right then it will be bad and if you act according to this plan without receiving a guarantee, then it is simply stupid. I initially proposed to make a statement / intention (official) in order to determine the direction of action, if in response to the official statement, an answer is received from many exchange exchanges and users that this is the right way, then forward, if the results are controversial, then the question is returned.
It’s just that the whole discussion revolves around should / should not, and I think this is not the right way, the right way to determine the possibilities of each choice, “it is necessary” but it can stop the project, “it is not necessary” but it can stop the project, both options are not correct, I I think we need to make a choice in favor of what we need to do in order to guarantee the continuation of the project and the achievement of the goal, the calculation of options for changes and which path is guaranteed to reach the goal, but again it is necessary to take risks to shorten the path, but only if it shortens the path, and for understanding it is necessary to analyze what the path shortens and what poses a threat.
I fully support the view of secparam that it is necessary to restore the idea of ​​the project, but I just want to explain the threats that I see during sudden changes, if you can bypass everything that I wrote, then you need to act, but so far I only read the opinion of people without a specific plan and sufficient guarantees to start changing something, again, we are not deciding it here, although we are trying to discuss it, we don’t make it worse, but we don’t get closer to the goal either.

Vision, mission & principles comes first before defining the roadmap, strategy, tactics & path to get there. We are trying to build consensus on the ideas. How? part comes next, although various options were mentioned previously.

For example, ZF/ECC can reach out to top exchanges & ask them about their views on t2t (so there won’t be any surprises).

1 Like

You describe desires and you need to calculate the possibilities, so we do not hunt each other. Well, for example, the trademark owner will tell the community do as you want and the ECC and the fund united by a common mission will support you, we take a step and it leads to my fears what then? The plan is to achieve the goal and not in the process of moving towards the goal, where there are no guarantees that what we come up with will come true, so we need specialists who bring ideas to implementation, not dreamers who just see the goal.

And regarding contacting the exchanges, this is the first step in my opinion, I have already written above and before, but in order to make a statement and start to act, the teams need to calculate the risks of this statement and understand that this seemingly harmless step is not will jeopardize the current state of affairs, but I could be wrong (this is the general rule in business and what they have in years I do not know).
ZF in one person does not have the authority to act without the consent of the other side, this is the problem, otherwise the work would have been done, I think.
Just look at all this from an economic point of view and everything will become clear, a mission without money is nothing, there will be no team without money, and some enthusiasts will not go far, there will be no money in the project and it will end, so it was with many and will be with by many and not only in the world of cryptocurrencies.
I urged the fund to determine the possibility at the level of the user and the owner of the trademark, this is the first step on the way, if a strict refusal is received, then there is no point in this discussion, do you agree? If there is no refusal, but there are fears about the goal and mission, then public opinion from the industry is needed and, in principle, to calculate the legal risks for the future, but this means you can act.

In this issue, I urge everyone to determine not the goal (it is clear), but the possibilities for achieving it, firstly, get an answer from the trademark owner that this does not contradict the mission, and we must support the initiator of this issue, and then we will argue what to do and what not.
It seems to me that in the first post, in addition to the mission, there is not enough target audience, for whom this project actually is, for themselves or for a mass of people who will need it in the future (perhaps already now, but apparently they do not know about it yet), this project was for people (this is my personal opinion), but it seems that everything that is being done is a project for the sake of the project, they decide what is best for everyone, do not consult with the target audience, do not know the target audience, and everything revolves around friends, acquaintances and enthusiasts who, again, are not a fact that users, just project staff and valanters, and of course around exchanges and individuals. Where is all that mass of people who are waiting for this project?
If I am right and the project has become for “no one” then this explains the fact that he has gone astray and that no matter what news and efforts are made, it still becomes cheaper, and the fact that no one listens to us and that there are no visible changes that they want some forum members and other people who write on different social networks, and the negative attitude from the outside is increasing, is this possible?

We can instead put double incentive to mine ztoz if its possible start with something better 2 or 3%
And high fee like 3% extra to mine just t to t
This would have great promotion to start z to z transfers easily…
I feel the fee model makes sense

The better we make it scalable the better it becomes to be used as payment method… I’m sure we are heading to right direction I would agree with zookos vision.
Could zcash foundation bring some views and tell us what’s next?

1 Like

Even though the privacy of zcash has optional its still gets regarded as privacy coin and where monero dash is delisted zcash follows them as well… I feel we can reach out to every single exchange to the big to the small to understand if they want ztoz if they don’t want ztoz and want to stick with the current hybrid then it’s fine… Whatever the decisions are made should be along with zcash and its future goals to make people easy access to privacy and faster payments.

1 Like

I very much agree with this principle and I act accordingly.

For example if a charity that I loved offered only a T address for donations I would donate 0(x). If they offer T and Z donations I might donate 1(x) if I was in a great mood that day. If they stopped accepting T address donations and offered only Z support I would gladly donate 10(x).

There is a 0% chance that I will ever recommend Ledger or Trezor to anyone to store Zcash in a T address. I will buy 10+ hardware wallets to give away as gifts as soon as they offer shielded support. Until that is possible I recommend those that care about privacy use a modified version of the following (with shamir secret sharing, materials for water and fire protection, etc) to store ZEC in shielded addresses:

To ignore the regulatory environment is like shooting your self in the foot. It needs to be useable. So getting embedded into the fabric of the digital finance and transaction processing along with working within the regulatory framework are critical.

Nobody is ignoring the regularly framework. There is no regulatory reason why T addresses need to be maintained.

Shielded transactions are perfectly compatible with the regulatory framework already! See the resources here if you have questions:

Hello @Tsupportisharmful you seem like a pretty new nym around here. You joined the forum specifically to advance a particular idea?

Are there any other concepts/topics you find interesting?

For example I have some interesting observations to share in this thread: Principles for expanding z2z transactions

Perhaps you’d care to weigh in there?


Yes, many. Shielded Zcash atomic swaps with Bitcoin is something I am very excited about

I’ve mentioned it before (elsewhere perhaps) bit I find it rather odd to advocate for the removal of our integrated atomic swap functionality, on the premise its bad for user privacy, while being hopeful for new functionality that will only do the same thing but with other chains. Whats the difference (from the privacy maximalist perspective) of swapping Z for T and swapping Z for Btc?


Good question!

We can both agree that Bitcoin has many users desire permission-less access to privacy. Some BTC users would like to buy ZEC via atomic swaps. As evidence for the pent up demand for privacy focused exchanges look at the most popular pair on Bisq (it is XMR/BTC by a wide margin). I am not a trader and I wont be selling Zcash for Bitcoin via swap, but I expect some will because they will receive a premium for doing so (compare the higher XMR prices on Bisq to XMR prices on centralized exchanges for evidence to support this thesis).

My preference for shielded swaps is to continue to allow access to ZEC once we depreciate T addresses. Its a matter of future proofing access to Zcash for the Bitcoin community. We dont want to fall behind Monero in Atomic Swap development

That wasn’t the question but ok

If you are referring to your quote below future proofing access to Zcash was my answer.

Transparent (t address) swaps with Bitcoin cannot exist once we depreciate T addresses.

I have philosophical reasons to support only Z address swaps, but find them made moot by my technical argument. We cant use T addresses for atomic swaps once T addresses no longer exist.

I’m in favor of maximizing z2z transactions, but I am opposed to coercive techniques (e.g. removing t2x, or x2t transactions). I therefore believe that I am a “Privacy Maximilist”.

My strategy is the best way to increase z2x, x2z, transactions! (In My Humble Opinion, which I now explicitly offer without reference to supporting evidence!!!) ← So… if someone wants to investigate this argument… one thing One COULD do… is bring some evidence to the table!

1 Like

What does Zcash stand for? I don’t have an answer that supports having fully transparent transactions (no privacy at all to preserve) on blockchain forever.


  1. t2t is not privacy preserving
  2. Zcash is privacy preserving currency.

Zcash is not perfect or complete. What’s broken is basic foundational principle that we don’t seem to agree upon.

It’s a shame that we advertise Zcash as https of money when its not.

Right now, all types of Zcash transactions are treated equally in the software. Think about a scenario where our blocks are full, given same transaction fee, which transaction should be given priority? z2z or t2t?


z2z transactions is the purpose of z2z and what makes it great

There are many other options to use transparent transactions (Bitcoin or any of its forks). The world does not benefit from another BTC clone. In the full block scenario you describe I hope that miners prioritize confirming shielded transactions

1 Like