Inspired by what @jelly5649 proposed in the Potential Binance Delisting thread. I think we should try to formalize community decision on getting rid of transparent pool on October 28th 2026, on the 10th birthday of Zcash. 34 months should give ample time for Zcash users and contributors to adapt with this decision. CEX can also prepare if they want to keep listing Zcash after that.
To ensure inclusivity and representation of our diverse community, I suggest conducting temperature check polls across multiple platforms, including this forum, official @zcash Twitter, and the Zcash Global Discord server.
Let’s kick off the process with a poll right here on the forum. Your input is crucial, so please take a moment to share your thoughts and preferences regarding the removal of the transparent pool.
Do you support retiring transparent pool (t-addr) when Zcash turns 10 on October 28th 2026?
Yes
No
0voters
Notes:
This poll will be closed on Jan 28th before the start of Zeboot. Hopefully this can be a topic of discussion there.
Only users with forum trust level 1 (basic) with at least 10 mins of forum reading time can vote in this poll. If you just sign up, spend some time reading posts before voting, for example Principles for deprecating t2t transactions is an excellent thread on this topic.
I actually don’t know how I feel about depreciating t-adds, I go back and forth. It’s not something that should be made lightly, and while Zcash is trading near all time lows the temptation to make large changes to the project is near an all time high.
I believe we should make this kind of decision ASAP so that we understand users expectation
Also, if community decides “Yes” on this matter. It will mean easier decision making when it comes to roadmap planning and grants acceptance. As, projects that will leverage Transparent pool can predict if their implementation will be usable in the long term or not.
As a counter-point, THORchain only supports transparent addresses. So if we depreciated t-adds, we would be potentially closing ourself off from that DEX, likely others (I’m not familiar with all DEX options).
As a counter-point, If we ever want to see a Zcash ETF, like what Grayscale is attempting with their privacy ETF featuring ZEC (maybe we don’t want this!), I’m guessing they will require t-adds.
Regardless, there are pros and cons on both sides, which is why I say I go back and forth on this issue. They should be discussed before we make any decisions!
I am definitely in favor of retiring T addresses. The issue is we will lose support on pretty much all the on and off ramps so we have to be careful with timing.
What’s interesting though is the fact that Zcashd is transitioning to Zebra, so alot of these exchanges/pools/etc… that added T addresses because they are similar to Bitcoin will have to do some backend work anyway once the last release of Zcashd is done.
So if they have to do that work anyway, why can’t they agree/decide to use UAs exclusively? Then we could pick a timeframe to get rid of T addresses without affecting on ramps , to them it wouldn’t make a difference?
Something of a “compromise” may be keeping t-adds but “depreciating” them in the sense that their use is highly discouraged. Have wallets default to shielded, and make t-adds harder to use, not default, very high fees, etc. This way we can still connect to ecosystems (eg. THORchain) that require t-adds, and any regulated entities that require t-adds can still use them. Users will largely opt for shielded txs because the incentives push them there.
I think we will have more options with ZEC on or off ramp to fiat. It will not be surprising for big exchanges to go down in two years while other will take their place. Also, with new projects that uses Sapling go main net (e.g. Ironfish, Namada, Penumbra), we will see a more mature ecosystem for shielded transactions. I suspect view keys and payment disclosure will be a huge part in enabling ZEC on/off ramp in the future without relying on Bitcoin-style Twitter-for-your-bank-account transactions.
would we still be able to verify the amount that is in circulation?
holding your ZEC in the transparent pool gives you a headache free investment that the supply won’t get inflated due to a bug. whereby holding it in the shielded pool is could turn thousands of ZEC into 0 if it gets exploited.
i am in favor to remove transparent addresses, but what are the downsides?
Based on more than 7 years of Zcash existence, this has been proven wrong. Even with mobile-enabling Sapling. Even with no-trusted-setup Orchard. Even with one-address-for-all UA.
Also, I believe removing transparent address will make it easier to develop new features like ZSA, PoS and others.
You didn’t read my post. I said create more incentives to discourage t-add use and encourage shielded use. The only incentive pushing people to shielded now is the privacy. Also, IMO the main reason we don’t see more people storing in the shielded pool is because there is currently, after nearly 8 years, no HW wallet support for shielded addresses. Give us the ability to shield in a HW wallet and I promise you we will see the % of ZEC shielded sky rocket.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we need t-adds for the turnstile? Meaning losing t-adds we are sacrificing some auditability.
Sapling to Orchard transactions reveals the amount without going to a t-addr, right?
We should see if this is true in a couple of months with Ledger Shielded app coming soon. I don’t think it will result in huge move out of transparent pool. My prediction: there will still be more than 10 million ZEC in the transparent pool at the end of 2024.
we know the amount that is in the shielded pools, but if someone exploits the shielded pool and transfers the ZEC to the transparent pool, those that are still holding their ZEC in the shielded pool could be the ones that loose their ZEC, because it’s only possible to withdraw as much as has gone into the shielded pool.
transparent ZEC gives you peace of mind for this attack vector.
This is a common misconception; while the amounts crossing between pools in a transaction is public information, the transparent address system is not involved in any way. The amounts crossing the pool boundaries are just values in the transaction; for example, a transfer from Sapling to Orchard will publicly reveal the amount leaving the Sapling pool and the amount entering the Orchard pool, but there are no transparent inputs or outputs to the transaction at all.
