Hey! Does anyone around here have connections to the tor community?
It was pointed out here:
keybase://chat/zcashcommunity#paywithzcash/104
that tor, at this URL:
is currently accepting taddress zcash only.
I volunteered to try to upgrade that. Can anyone around here point me in the right direction?
Or better yet, just get it fixed? Should be super easy to do!!
Yep that’s them… I’ll tell them that you can put them up on paywithz.cash .
I have this idea that with a few, simple tweaks to zecwallet, I can make all onboarding a more ongoing/over-time practice.
Hopefully I can convince @adityapk00 to allow the user to select different orders for the displayed transactions…
OK folks, I sent an email to:
I let them know that this page:
contained a “dangerously” obsolete t-address, and that they should upgrade ASAP.
Of course, you’re welcome to email that same address… obviously.
If/When they publish a zaddress… there’s good chance I might decide to donate some z2z to them.
There was a case where The Receiver sent a screen shot through a secure messaging app to The Sender. In that case the screen shot included the QR code. Yes. Does that answer your question?
IMHO it can be good for a non-profit to accept Zcash donations to a taddress, because then we get transparency about the number and size of the donations, while the donor — if they donate from their shielded stash — gets privacy about the source of the donations.
So to jive with the topic of this thread, it seems like the right next move is to encourage people to donate to the Tor Foundation’s taddress from their shielded stash. 
By the way, note an interesting linguistic detail: there’s not really such a thing as “shielded Zcash” or “transparent Zcash”. If you donate some ZEC from your shielded stash to Tor’s taddress, it’s the same Zcash. Zcash is Zcash.
Haha, tell them to put up both and people can donate to one or the other to signal their preference for the t-and-z model or the z-only model.
Not sure if this is the right thread to put this in but it seems relevant for this ecosystem/discussion. Diogo Monica from Anchorage did an interview on Real Vision Crypto (It’s free to sign up right now if you want to watch it). He made a great point about usability, security, and safety that I think it’s relevant for this community and worthy of consideration in this space.
43:06
And then as time goes on, if you look at security, you end up realizing that a lot of the security elements and the security professionals don’t care that much about usability or their users. They believe that if a system is able to be secure in some set of configuration, it does not matter how hard that configuration is to achieve for them to believe that system is secure. So what that means is that when something goes wrong, they say, oh, the user forgot to enable this flag, or the user forgot to do x or do y. And somehow, they are victim blaming, and actually putting on the user the complexity of configuring everything right.
43:43
And of course, that’s just something that is absolutely wrong. And surprisingly, it took a long time for the information security community to catch onto this. And really, only in the past five, six years if people actually started stopping this victim blaming aspect, and saying, no, no, no, no, no-- safety, not just security. It should be safe. The main mode of operating something should be safe.
44:06
And so I do have a motto because of that, which is to make “safe” easy, and “insecure” obvious. And that’s kind of what Anchorage also follows in terms of security guidelines in terms of philosophy for security.
Wouldn’t they have more autonomy with respect to their own accounts if they received at a z-address, and shared their viewing key with parties they wish to delegate insight too?
It’s one thing to be auditable by some, and another to auditable by all.
You tell 'em! 
I like your idea of having both options.
I think it’d be great if they ranked the available addresses according to which one that they had received the most value in. Actually when I was thinking of this earlier I was thinking of ranking/competition between different cryptocurrencies…
Make it a competition!
I definitely prefer sending to a zaddress.
One reason is that I really want the thoughtful folks at TOR to be in the problem space of having zcash that was received at a zaddress. They’ll have ideas, that I won’t. I really want that community to have more of our problems… err… I mean shielded zcash.
Yeah.
For example, if there were some way that a phone supported a “share to app” action on images, and the user directed it to a wallet that could process the image, that might be a reasonable improvement. No idea if mobile platforms do this. Any mobile devs know?
I do want to see ZEC support in existing established payment platforms. ECC is beginning to focus more on payments use cases.
This suggestion is going to make things worse and give more people the impression that you are trying to slow down adoption of Zcash shielded transactions. I am far less likely to donate to an organization that publishes both a T and a Z donation address and far more likely to support organizations that exclusively publish a Z address.
You asked me to look at this thread and I like much of what I see (interacting with those you do business with regularly and showing them the benefit of Z transactions). This is great and something others can learn from.
Lets stay focused on the title of this thread instead of trying to appease ECC leadership that continues to make decisions that harm user privacy instead. If we want the Zcash community to grow we need to focus on the larger outside community and attract those that care about privacy the most.
Top down leadership (by promoting T address adoption) is slowly increasing community consensus by driving away those that care the most about shielded adoption. I don’t think the goal should be to compete with Litecoin (optional MimbleWimble privacy that few will use) but that seems to be the direction ECC is headed. Default privacy for the world (starting with those that seek out Zcash because of the very high privacy guarantees its shielded transactions can provide should be the goal).
But… right now, it’s JUST t-addresses… surely adding a zaddress is a step in the right direction?!
I am in favor of MORE options. I would love to have a zaddress to donate to… if there’s still a taddress around… I won’t use it.
We agree on that. It is a step in the right direction
Moving in the right direction is different than liking something. This is what we disagree on. I don’t like both T and Z options being available because it tells the world that Zcash does not provide privacy for all users. It only provides privacy for the small % of the network that uses an optional privacy feature.
I want to be clear on my preference for any merchants publishing ZEC address types from best to worst:
We are talking about the Tor website being #4. I agree with you that adding a Z address and moving to #3 would be an improvement. I still do not like #3 and since it emphasizes that Zcash privacy is optional I think it is arguably worse that #2 with no Zcash support at all. We need to be focused on moving to #1. If that means that we lose a few exchanges or merchants in the process that is acceptable to me and will make the Zcash network stronger.
Hmmm… maybe I will hit @adityapk00 up on github.
So, after brief experimentation with UnStoppable, I am mostly returning to zecwallet.
UnStoppable is pretty sweet, it has lots of features… but it’s not easy to onboard new users with it. zecwallet, by contrast is quite minimal, and therefore easily explained.
I’m tinkering with nighthawkwallet, as well.
Well, two things:
Have you tried it? I’m sure you’ve created a t-address before — an address that is auditable by all. But have you ever created a zaddress and shared the viewkey with some so that it is auditable by some? I love the spirit of this thread — about actually doing things that help instead of just talking about it. In that spirit, if you do that exercise, you’ll experience the user experience, such as possibly the experience of Tor devs, if they want auditability of their donations. Hopefully with that experience you’ll be better able to give advice that helps users like the Tor devs.
What if they want it to be auditable by all?
To your first point:
It’s been a while since I tried to use a viewing key… and I am pretty sure I didn’t succeed then. (Maybe 1 year ago?) If I Recall Correctly, I thought that it didn’t actually exist yet.
But… I am not opposed to leaving a t-address up, so I don’t know that this would be the most efficient use of my time.
To your second point:
I hadn’t considered that strategy. It’s interesting.
Is Zcash right product for that? Why would someone use “privacy preserving” currency for that? We could ask rhetorical question for many things? what if folks want to keep using Sapling instead of HALO (for example).