Does anyone know if any exchanges will accept payments directly from shielded addresses? I see that it wasn’t possible in the past but just curious if there are any options now.
1 Like
Yes actually. Since you can send to T or Z from your Z address, it’s possible to still keep your transaction history details private while depositing funds to an exchange that only supports T addresses.
If your referring to Exchanges that accept payments to thier Z address, then I don’t know of any.
4 Likes
Ah okay, thanks so much for the prompt reply! I was actually thinking that… based on being able to send t–>z like you said (why should a deposit address be any different?). But wanted to double-check.
1 Like
Yeah, it works both ways. But remember that it’s important to not use the shielded pool as a pass-thru, but rather a bulk savings account.
For example if I put 12.34567 ZEC (T-Z) into my private address, then later withdraw 12.34557 ZEC (Z-T) there is a high likelihood of correlation between the transactions because of the amount.
But if I have a large amount, and payout several smaller amounts out of my shielded funds, then it becomes difficult/impossible to correlate the initial deposit into the shielded pool.
3 Likes
Is possible with Gemini and Coinbase, don’t know about any others.
I know Gemini and CB will accept to a z-to-t tx.
It is possible to send to any T address from any Z address, regardless if its an exchange or another person you meet.
2 Likes
Shape-shift and The Rock trading used to support shielded deoposits and withdrawals I believe but neither do anymore
AFAIK no. I believe you can’t send to a trezor or ledger from a zaddr, but don’t quote me on that. they are t-to-t either way.
OP was asking if they can send from their Z-address to an exchange, and the answer is yes.
Nobody mentioned hardware wallets. Trezor and Ledger do not support private addresses so if OP had funds on one of them they would not be in a Z-address.
If zcash knows there was a bug, and the migration will uncover if there was inflation, the migration to the new protocol should be mandatory and done immediately. Why isn’t the migration being done.
My understanding is there is a risk that there was inflation and that someone who owns zcash could actually lose their investment based on how the migration works (assuming there was counterfeiting). This risk should be eliminated ASAP.
It was/ is being done, many users including myself have already made the migration.
The key issue is how to you make it “mandatory”? Nobody at ECC or ZFND has the users private keys to force users to do anything.
Also, It looks like there is about 100K ZEC sitting in the old Sapling pool. If the balance on that pool ever goes negative (ie: someone is trying to remove more than was put in) then the Nodes will automatically reject the transaction. That means users who still have “real” funds in the pool will be out-of-luck because a hacker “got out the door” first. But the overall supply integrity of 21M would remain intact.
This has been discussed at length in other threads, suggest reading through them: Zcash Counterfeiting Vulnerability Successfully Remediated - #68 by joshs
1 Like