the plot thickens… #1 on the list. hopefully zcashco’s reaching out
https://www.fidelity.com/news/article/investing-ideas/201808301056BANKRATEBANKRATE2876052978
3 Likes
I don’t think the moos is soon. Anyway, agree about Samsung impact to cryptocurrencies recovery.
Around the 4:39:44 mark is where StarkWare (Eli) give a presentation on what they are working on for DEXs. at the end of his presentation, he demo’s a 500tx in a single block over a web browser.
1 Like
The presentation afterwards is very interesting (honestly super technical as well hard to follow if you’re not well versed) its Alessandro Chiesa giving a presentation of SNARKS with no trusted set-up. Also, faster verification times.
2 Likes
“The VanEck SolidX Bitcoin ETF proposed rule-change has been resubmitted by CBOE”
http://cdn.cboe.com/resources/regulation/rule_filings/pending/2019/SR-CboeBZX-2019-004.pdf
https://leastauthority.com/blog/zcash-security-audit-reports/
(Pdf)
https://coinspect.com/doc/CoinspectReportZcash2018.pdf
1 Like
Thanks fo sharing the Kuldeski report in the conclusion they mentioned “Overall, we believe that the highest risk to Zcash’s security is a flaw in its protocol logic and theoretical properties” what does it mean? Can someone please help explain in simplified non tech version?
2 Likes
How can you all talk how Zcash is privacy coin when now 80% off hashrate is in China…its just that 2 dont come to me in same sentence.
please explain to me how “hashrate location” would have an effect on zcash encryption?
I as well thought first that he might have in mind dezentralization instead of privacy, but thinking a bit about it maybe he has in mind that privacy is getting compromised with a possible censorship attack due 80+% of hashrate being located in china, which indeed should be a concern.
Not sure though if that was his intention. If not than he messed up just decentralizatin with privacy…
1 Like
what else did you expect in asic network?
that 80% of hashrate will come from enthusiasts in US or Europe?
several theories, but nobody knows for sure
https://twitter.com/robstokes/status/1091330410636812288
volume/market cap phenomenon is pretty amazing, tho …not sure i’ve seen anything constantly trade it’s entire market cap within 48 hours on average.
edit - QTUM also does this
seems really interesting!
here’s some light reading for everybody today
https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/099
“Sonic: Zero-Knowledge SNARKs from Linear-Size Universal and Updateable Structured Reference Strings”
1 Like
Mhm…
Clearly some people have a misunderstanding of how Zcash privacy actually works. When using z-addresses there is no un-encrypted information exposed to miners. When using private transactions, it simply doesn’t matter where the miner is located. As far as censorship attacks are concerned, as long as the transaction is using z-addresses there isn’t enough information to censor individual transactions.
1 Like
Maybe i wasn’t exact enought to keep things simple in the speculation thread.
Here some quoting why i think this could result in compromising privacy as i imagine all private z-adress transactions could be blocked/censored, not? That’s just my theoretical view, i would be happy if i’am wrong!
With control of at least 51% of the hash rate, Chinese mining pools could
simply announce that they will not mine on chains containing transactions from
their list of censored addresses. This is called a (a) punitive forking attack.
With less than 51% of the hash power, Chinese miners could still attempt to fork
whenever they see a censored transaction, but some attempts may fail. However,
the forks that succeed orphan the blocks found by miners that include censored
transactions, reducing their profits, so some may be convinced to follow China’s
> censorship rules. This is a (b) feather forking attack [32,36]. As both attacks
require announcing intent, we classify them as overt.
One way China could reduce the hash power required for forking-based censorship attacks is through an © eclipse attack [23]. By directing a large number
of peers to monopolize all incoming and outgoing connections to specific victim
nodes, this attack controls what those victim nodes see and do in the Bitcoin
network in order to prevent them from learning about the transactions China
wants to censor. This reduces the portion of the network that is counteracting
censorship attacks by trying to approve the transactions China is trying to censor, meaning that less hash power is required to succeed at censorship, especially
if the targeted victim nodes are miners with substantial hash power. This attack
can be performed covertly, as victimized peers are unlikely to realize that their
connections are being manipulated.
The final attack that China can employ for censorship is (d) Internet traffic
tampering using the GFW and control over domestic ISPs. China could either
> block blacklisted transactions originating in China from propagating or prevent
> blacklisted transactions originating outside of China from entering the country
> and reaching Chinese miners. This attack is overt because it would be clear
to …
The unfortunate thing about articles like this, if you read through it, is that many users will find his voice and opinion legitimate. Reading further into it shows that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
A few quotes:
As scaling solutions, layer-2, layer 3, gets built on top of it, we will get additional use cases or additional applications from the Bitcoin network. But what that does is widen the total adjustable market. Today, Bitcoin is very specific for a very targeted group of people. As we get a lot of this innovation and scalability, we’ll actually see more and more people interested in it. And so that’s where a lot of the growth will come from in the future as well. So I don’t think you can quite say, ‘Hey, it’s not electronic cash. It’s only a story of value today,’ because what you’re doing is taking a single point in time that probably isn’t indicative of what this thing is going to evolve into as we just have more time to write code, etc.”
The idea of Bitcoin as a “store of value” has been debunked over the past year as it lost 85% of its value and pushed down all cryptocurrency prices as a result. Real value comes from utility and usage volume as a result of that utility. People are speculating on Bitcoin’s future utility which makes the price boom and bust every few years - it’s not a store of value.
“What we’re seeing with Lightning is, it is a scaling solution that’s being adopted at an incredible rate. It’s global, and it’s probably one of the fastest growing products or fastest growing projects in all of crypto.”
In August, 2018 it had something like 97 total Bitcoins on it. It’s absolutely not one of the fastest growing projects in all of crypto. LN adoption has been remarkably slow and impressively lackluster considering the censorship and messaging tactics that have been used to almost force people to use it.
5 Likes
I thought Zcash privacy works completely the same as Bitcoin’s one… but unlike Bitcoin, Zcash ensures your personal and transaction data remain completely confidential