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:
1 Like
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?
3 Likes
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?
2 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
Fact:
- t2t is not privacy preserving
- 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.
1 Like
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?
4 Likes
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
Lets go further with the https analogy. Here’s the post from chrome when they announced their plan for nudging websites towards https.
They did it by committing to a plan that gradually ramped up disincentives (warning labels about insecurity of http).
Note that they did not make plans to stop supporting http outright (which very well may have harmed privacy by overplaying their hand and driving more use of other browsers instead).
11 Likes
My point was Zcash is currently both http & https of money while Bitcoin is just http of money but we do advertise it as “https” of money. Shielded auto migration is doing http-to-https redirect but we still have “http”.
If they did then users who want to see the content cannot view it on Chrome (stating obvious). BUT if we ban t2t, users can still move their Zcash from one exchange (from taddr) to another (to taddr) (if they are just storing Zcash in their wallet, they don’t need t2t at all) via t2z & z2t. It will also help users setup their personal wallets instead of using walled gardens that store their money.
Yes. And the problem is, we can’t even commit to that. Instead we get " the best of both worlds".
This shouldn’t be a hard thing to agree on. Sure, figuring out how best to do it will be tricky, there will be false starts and set backs. There’s an outside chance its harmful and we end up giving up on slowly depreciating taddrs.
But we’re debating whether it’s a good idea at all to say this is the goal.
3 Likes
Really? I thought almost everyone wants to see wallets nudge users towards z-addresses? That’s the Zcash analog of the Chrome blog post.
In the http/https analogy, disabling t-addresses would be like ISPs not allowing http traffic, right? That type of protocol level change wasn’t necessary to get most of the internet to use https.
edit: I think there would be a lot of agreement about disincentives like wallets having warning labels on t-addresses, and defaulting to z-addresses.
2 Likes
I don’t know where the disconnect is. This post is about t2t. Let’s chat about t-addr in “resetting zcash” thread.
You can say the same thing with Sprout. Treat t-addr as a shielded pool less “secure” (in terms of privacy not hidden inflation) than Sprout. Right now, sends to sprout is blocked because it is not as secure as Sapling. t-addr should be treated the same.
It’s the unconditional love some folks give towards keeping t-addr & t2t that is mind boggling to me.
1 Like