Unified Addresses Composition

[GGuy]

@conradoplg

I wonder if we should update the UA spec to only allow shielded components, and use the regular “t” encoding for transparent addresses. This way it will be always clear if an address is transparent or not.

How much breakage would we get if we did that?

Not “if” but “when”.

If we can quickly and objectively agree that t-address components in UAs are not a net benefit today, and will be even more problematic as Zcash scales, it seems like you’re right to suggest removing them from the spec now.

1. Are t-address components in UAs a net benefit to Zcash users today? No. They add far more unnecessary complexity than real user benefit.
2. Are t-address components in UAs likely to net benefit Zcash users in the near future? Leaning strongly toward unlikely. There’s no clear upcoming use case that justifies the extra risk and confusion.
3. Will t-address components in UAs be a net benefit when Zcash exceeds 1M users? Absolutely not. Mixing transparent addresses into UAs at scale would be a serious mistake. It undermines privacy expectations, creates UX pitfalls, and damages the clarity and strength of Zcash’s shielded narrative.