I expressed this point of view several times, no one apparently understands the real problem that zcash is facing and will face in the future, if it becomes popular, it will be banned, if it enters the darknet, it will be banned (by the way, therefore, the ECC team has repeatedly said that the advantage of zcash is that it does not exist illegal operations, what? it is not used because it can be exposed through pressure on its developers.), and any bad news means a loss of funding due to a fall in prices or a ban, which is why in 2020 all efforts were thrown into the extension of the tax from block a not to increase the popularity of the coin). First you need to solve real problems and then try to solve the issue of the full Z direction.
But they call me a troll for such posts.
If the ECC and the Fund announce their intention to abandon salaries for a certain period that will be used to develop a completely Z direction, then this makes sense (why refuse salaries because all the accumulated money will need to be spent on introducing zcash into exchanges and, in principle, spend all the same work that was done before. Do you think someone will agree to such a plan, but think that we will decide to abandon T addresses and everything will remain the same and even get better, then this is not proven, but again I agree that if zec leaves from the leading exchanges, then he will have a chance to keep the price and even rise, because my point of view is also not proven, but the risk for the teams will have problems.
That is why a plan and agreement is needed.
Wow, so you understand everything about Zcash? 
Three sentences:
- For the last time, Zcash is about privacy
- Under no circumstance that I care what everybody thinks, Zcash is about privacy
- Do we want to care about what someone, who have no skin in the game, thinks? NO. This one is about privacy.
I understand your point of view, but zcash is not the property of the public, so it doesn’t matter what we all want, it is important what can be done with the project and what is not, here you only need to consider what you can, which means you need to find out whether what we want is possible or not, here that’s all.
A case can be made that Mimblewimble coins are safer, as they directly compare the total value in the UTXO set against the expected emission, using only a few lines of code. For example the Grin expected emission up to some height ((height+1) * 60) is checked against the UTXO set in
I suppose you are right, but GRIN has a slightly different concept regarding data storage in the chain, I cannot say who will win in a direct comparison of reliability and security, but you are right that GRIN has the advantage of double-checking. And on the topic: the same GRIN transfers are fully protected, there is neither a fund nor an official development company, but this all does not allow him to become the first among equals, therefore, for zcash, the above points can be both negative and positive, or have no effect at all for adoption, but what is not to use 100% is the real “bad” with which you need to fight, do you agree?
Wow, if only someone had seen this and pointed it out in January 2016. Oh wait…
…Or followed up in December 2016 with the specifics of exactly how the rollout failed:
Both of these quotes from this thread:
Maybe there is still time to turn things around. Still invoking the ghost of SJ: Think Different!
I get what you’re saying, but putting a compliance bound org in legal jeopardy in the name of adoption seems calamitous at best for our goal to see Zcash succeed since folks still need rails into and out of the fiat ecosystem. People like you, MikeInMass, or any other user of these outlets that have no official org affiliation should be the ones encouraging/asking for Zcash adoption with these outlets if you truly believe in Zcash privacy and want to use it for that purpose.
I believe it is a community responsibility to ask outlets that they want to use Zcash at to adopt it as a form of payment.
I believe ECC/ZF/ZOMG should be focused on strengthening our core principals and providing support when there are limitations to the above adoption.
Fix/strengthen the core principals and people will come.
It can also be argued that the absence of information from the end user entails a lack of understanding about the product, as well as what transparent and secure translations are, but variability is only a distinctive feature in front of completely transparent projects and fully protected, there is no advertising, there is no audience coverage. Outside the community, no one knows because this is the nature of marketing, or lack thereof. If it could be argued that the limitation in adoption lies in the trust setting or the presence of transparent addresses, then I think other projects that are devoid of these shortcomings would show good dynamics in adoption, but we see that this is not so.
Now the (second) distribution of money for training on COINBASE has started again for the first time, the ECC team claimed that this contributed to the arrival of 100 thousand new users, while the availability of permanent wallets in the network fell, it is precisely because of such moves that there is no progress, no matter how much you give users’ money will not increase, people will just sell and that’s it, but the PR team apparently believes that the presence of ZEC on the leading exchanges gives the status of a coin that everyone wants to use and the availability of T addresses or something else is absolutely not interesting for the overwhelming number of users, everyone needs a product that is convenient when it comes to using.
In my opinion, it is necessary to work for the status, it is important to be different not only technically but also emotionally for consumers. If they say that zec is located on all exchanges and is available, then most do not care if it can still be purchased in the end in another place, but if they say that only this product can be paid in a certain place (either the price is lower, or the speed is higher, or the attitude is better for example, then the situation is changing, well, as an option, the system of preserving values, but here zec suffers a complete failure.It is necessary to get an introduction into a system where you cannot pay with cryptocurrency at all, I think this is the most important achievement of the technology to which the regulator is friendly, as the twins say.
Hi everyone, I think we should move this [discussion of taddr depreciation] into its own thread. The details are important, but the point of this thread was different and Zooko’s answer (now in the forked thread) lays bare the problem.
The point isn’t about what we can you do, its about what we stand for, From that, you then decide what to do based on some principle vs practicality trade off. Personally, practicality is rather important to me. I suspect taddrs should be around for a bit. But we have to agree on the principles first.
The problem right now is we forgot the principle. Maybe we should keep taddrs, maybe we shouldn’t. But they pose a problem if we stand for privacy and its time we acknowledged that.
As I said on twitter:
If nothing else, taddrs existing means many exchanges and wallets list zec but do not give users access to privacy. For a privacy coin, this is a moral problem. Supporting zcash should, eventually, require supporting zaddrs. At least make transparent a disclosure on top of a z-tx
There are arguments that make that compromise necessary, but it must be viewed as a compromise.
All,
I have moved a few posts that are focused on T vs Z addresses to the Leapfrogging Z-addresses thread to keep this one more on the philosophical topic of “resetting Zcash” to focus on privacy.
Also, topics about the security of Pools / 21M coins were moved to the "what should we do about legacy value pools thread.
Ian Miers is the hero we need but don’t deserve for Zcash 
Ian is a founding scientist of Zcash (based on his work for Zerocash) and a board member at the Zcash Foundation. He is serving this project very well.
We absolutely deserve him because we voted for him.
Yeah He got the highest votes as well!!
Can we already say that I was right or is it too early? Or better this: Wow, how do you understand everything in zcash? Don’t be angry, I just pointed to the results of our little argument, I am not maliciously.
In every society there are people who agree and disagree but zcash wasn’t really meant for transparency the model it implemented was to have high level privacy which doesn’t reveal your history… If people need transparency than I feel this isn’t the blockchain for them. If the regularity has an issue than what’s the point and what’s the difference between centralisation and decentralisation crypto… Decentralization by all means should be for the people and help them in their future.
The transparent model isn’t meant for zero knowledge protocol
Let’s be understand the usefulness the concept and meaning behind zero knowledge protocol.
Using z addresses correctly achieves the goal of complete anonymity and confidentiality and this does not contradict either the purpose or mission of ZCASH, the presence of T addresses can create a condition where anonymity is not achieved but it is a matter of use, for example, safe scissors that can be stuck in the eye (misuse) or a hammer can become a weapon, the question is not how to make zcash a tool in which anonymity cannot be violated, but how to use it as intended, do you agree?
The view key also violates anonymity, maybe it is worth removing it now because someone might be using it incorrectly?
Let other people keep their points instead of spamming the forum with your personal opinions on what you think and want…
I’d suggest judging people more from their actions than from their words. Here are just a few of the things that Electric Coin Co has done recently to support Zcash in general and z-addresses in particular:
- Fought against FUD and against what seems to potentially be some murky backroom pressure to delist Zcash from exchanges.
- Developed z-address-first wallet software and supported ZecWallet [*], Nighthawk Wallet, and Unstoppable Wallet in deploying it.
- Supported Gemini in rolling out shielded withdrawals.
- Discovered, and began productizing, the next generation of zero-knowledge proof technology — Halo — which could radically improve Zcash, which could radically improve other blockchains, and which could also have applications beyond blockchain.
- Maintained and improved the core
zcashdsoftware on a steady release cadence with top-quality security support. - Supported the huge and growing adoption of ZEC among high-quality partners world-wide.
- Did educational outreach to let people know about Zcash’s existence and about why it matters.
- Advised Zondax in their work to bring z-addresses to Ledger hardware wallets and provided cryptographic auditing to support its deployment.
- And probably 10 more things that someone on my team will be mad at me that I didn’t mention here because they are all knocking out excellent results every month!
Stay tuned for recaps and roadmaps about even better stuff, because when we set out to do something, we deliver!
Again, not to put too fine a point on it, but judge people by their actions more than by their words.
P.S. EDITED TO ADD: Not to put too too fine of a point on it, but what I’m suggesting is that the Zcash community judge everyone, not just ECC, by their actions, not just by their words.
[*] ZecWallet uses a different software stack than the other two, but I don’t think that matters for my point here, which is that ECC is working hard and delivering results at implementing and supporting z-address support in many different ways.