as far as I understand the goal is to increase utility (wallets, zsa, exploration with the hackaton currently, etc.) and increasing the privacy pool, which would address the issue of potential privacy risks due to low transaction volume… also as long as you stay shielded i guess your privacy is not at risk in any way even with low transaction volume.
Also I think the example with the apples i flawed as you assume that all the apples are transparent, which they are not
Let’s try an experiment, go to https://3xpl.com/zcash/address/orchard-pool
so you can see that is not impossible to conduct a private transaction. Other than transactions moving into/out of the orchard pool what other info does the blockchain leak that prevents two friends from sending money privately? Perhaps you are mixing up anonymity vs privacy, which are not the same.
Best way to learn is to try for yourself. If you start going into the weeds about network security, well then yes, every blockchain is in the same boat. The goal is to be better than any transparent chain, which I think it succeeds.
Today, there were a couple of dozen transactions, and 99% of them were for amounts less than 100 bucks.
Try transferring a couple of thousand dollars from Kraken to Binance in Zcash anonymously, and you’ll understand what the problem is (I’m not even talking about 50k).
Maybe I’m confusing anonymity and privacy. Yes. So, is Zcash about privacy only? Maybe then we should introduce KYC at the blockchain level to put an end to anonymity?
Binance and anonymous is a contradiction. Best way to help is to leave funds in a shielded pool for a long time. This requires education because you have to hold your keys and understand shielded technology.
Where has anyone said that Zcash is anonymous? This is precisely where I think Monero culture is dangerous because it leads folks into believing they can do illegal things without consequence. Dark markets are a myth that are almost certainly being monitored, yet this is what many claim a victory lap on. Its dangerous and its why I focus my time here. I certainly don’t like KYC, I think the fact “where someone lives matters” sucks, and it breaks my heart… but I can only control so much and like to live in reality.
Should we continue to build tech to fight KYC, absolutely, but leave one foot on the ground.
That’s the point. And with the current state of affairs, it will be for a very long time, possibly forever 
It seems I finally understand you. But don’t agree.
For private payments, there’s no need for any complex technologies that zсash is developing. For most users, it’s enough to simply use different addresses.
I think those who strive for privacy ultimately think about anonymity because anonymity is essentially an advanced form of privacy. I’m sure zсash won’t be able to sit on two chairs and be both a “correct” and “law-abiding” cryptocurrency while performing the functions needed for those interested in real privacy. Right now, for such users, the choice is obvious - anonymity is undoubtedly better than just privacy. I don’t understand who zсash is targeting. Where are these people who care about privacy but are against anonymity? In my opinion, it’s like wanting to be smart but not too smart.
Or do you think that when monero is delisted from cexs (I also think it’s only a matter of time), it will disappear and people will start using zсash? I highly doubt both scenarios.
You’re not factoring AI agents.
Agreed, but this isnt binary and Zcash makes huges improvements.
You’re talking to one, although I wouldn’t go as far and say I’m against it, I just think in our current climate the friction is much to high to be worth the effort. I think if you factor AI as I mentioned above, most will see the light eventually.
I appreciate choice in life, and I think even if 1% of the world uses Zcash, that is a huge win. I think Zcash’s biggest hurdle, like many other coins rn, is social. It goes beyond the black and white tech.
Appreciate your time 
If you are using Monero then that may be the current situation until they fix the decoy selection algorithm since the effective ring can be as low as 4.2 (as I linked to above).
However, I think you are still mixing up Zcash transaction volume with Zcashs Anon set.
Bigger Anon set = better privacy.
More Transaction volume is good, but doesn’t automatically = better privacy.
To apply your apple analogy to how Zcash works:
There is a swimming pool filled with thousands of identical apples, 3 or 4 blindfolded people per day deposit apples in the pool, 3 or 4 blindfolded people take apples out.
There’s no way for the blindfolded person who withdraws from the pool to know who originally deposited the apples, or how many
were deposited since the apples are identical.
This is not the best analogy because it’s not interacting with T addresses, and as you mentioned you could be sending to an exchange with KYC. But if you withdraw your funds directly from the pool to an exchange (even if that exchange only accepts deposits to T addresses) the exchange has no way of knowing where those funds originated from.
The article is interesting without irony, but overall, without delving into specifics, this problem is solved by sending funds to your own addresses. Since the fees are very low, you can create an anon set of any size.
Regarding the pool example, if the shielded pool (orchard for example) is the swimming pool, I don’t quite understand where in the Zcash protocol the “identical apples” are. Transactions in and out of the shielded pool are all different amounts and don’t resemble identical apples at all. If someone throws a couple of thousand dollars into this pool, it looks like a huge watermelon among apples, and the same thing happens in reverse. That is, as written above, you need to throw it in, wait a long time until someone might throw in similar amounts, break your amount into parts, and withdraw them piece by piece. Nobody wants to bother with that, and as a result, there are no people willing to transfer apples through the pool.
Not really because nobody can observe the balance of any addresses in the pool, and further the addresses that hold the funds (Z or U) never appear on chain to even be able to search for. Therefore the only observable metric is the total amount in the pool went up or down a bit depending on a deposit or withdrawal. Think of all the ZEC sitting in the pool as identical to anyone looking at the blockchain. There is no watermelon to observe among apples.
The observation that X amount was withdrawn from the pool tells you nothing about any deposits into the pool, when they happened, or the amounts/numbers of transactions that took place within the pool (Z-Z transfers) before the withdrawal.
Let’s not forget the pool that we are talking about is currently holding over 1.6M ZEC.
Can also see latest metrics every week here
This is not a very serious use-case, but I wonder how many there are who would use a ZEC denominated Texas Holdem Poker website. I am not the one to build such a website, but I think it might be a fun thing. Whoever does it will end up dogfooding a lot of zcash software and that might yield good insights.
Wouldn’t it be risky given most of the US states prohibit gambling altogether, while a few authorize it but even among those few, cryptocurrency is generally not permitted?
We wouldn’t want to turn into Monero and encourage things considered illegal in here, right?
Oh yea right. I had not thought about that. Seems weird though considering you are allowed to lose all your money on meme coins. And you are allowed to play poker with monopoly notes. Do you know if it is permitted privately? I know here in Sweden you are of course allowed to play among friends, but it becomes illegal as soon as there is an entity behaving as house. Then you have to be registered with the authorities.
I think the biggest potential growth for ZCash is simply being the obvious first choice for a solo software developer that wants to integrate some kind of money solution into their software.
In Sweden, cash is already gone as a form of payment. We use card and a mobile app called Swish. Swish allows you to send and receive money with your phone. Transactions settle immediately so the money can be spent again moments later. Swish is expanding as a general payment on websites and in physical stores. In this app flow you pay by scanning a QR code and signing.
Notably, this UX is almost identical to using Zashi. I therefore think it should be possible for Zashi and ZEC to win by just being extremely convenient for merchants to integrate into their software. I enter a store to buy a 10 dollar sandwich, scan a QR code and send the ZEC at checkout. The PoS system detects my deposit within 1 or 2 seconds, goes green and I can leave the store with my sandwich.
Apologies @samhsmith, I was being tongue-in-cheek.
Governments don’t want us and (anon) Cypherpunks don’t want us either. We’re trying to appeal to both without being successful at either.
We should eat Monero’s lunch without fear. Money is not supposed to be political, as for as long as it will be, it won’t be… credible.
Love it. 
Zcash will not be convenient for integration with merchants, compared to non-private cryptocurrencies, because privacy technologies are achieved at the expense of certain, let’s say, inconveniences.
Merchants don’t need any additional integration that requires support, updates, etc., for just two payments a month worth $10.
Fiat mass payments will not allow truly private solutions. They will fight against them. To enter this market, Zcash would need the ability to block payments and view private transactions for government services, i.e., backdoors. In other words, it would have to turn into an ordinary stablecoin but with unnecessary technical complexities.
99% of users don’t care about privacy. If they pay with cryptocurrency, they use stablecoins and don’t want to deal with or endure risks related to exchange rate fluctuations.
The real power of private cryptocurrencies lies in decentralization, in various solutions like DEX and P2P, which truly start to live and work only when a critical mass of interested users is reached. And the hardest part is gathering this “minimum” of users to spark the “chemical reaction” so the system can support itself. The cryptocurrency that passes this stage first will win the race. The others will be forgotten.
I disagree very strongly. It seems that what you are suggesting is that ZEC cannot ever be used for commerce, instead the only use-case is trading against other currencies.
You seem to say that our highest hope is to be a mixer? This seems foolish given that mixers don’t work and are what governments are most likely to shut down because their purpose is exclusively to launder money.
Digital Commerce and Physical Commerce are legitimate use-cases where ZCash can provide value. You are correct that users don’t care about privacy. But they should not have to. It is our job to make sure that the most convenient payments network is also the most private.
Merchants do care about receiving tainted funds. You can frame all the privacy features as giving superior fungibility compared to other crypto currencies. This makes ZEC a better currency for commerce than other currencies. In my native economy, SEK is far more fungible than BTC, much less likely to cause you trouble. ZEC is even more fungible than SEK. Ergo, if it was easier to take ZEC payments on a technical level when compared to SEK. I don’t see why it could not win given it’s superiority on all other axes.
Maybe on a potential ZSA but never on the main chain. I dont like it either way 
Firstly, I already mentioned above that it is impossible to sell a pot without a bottom for a long time, and I don’t see the prospects of zcash as an investment coin without Utility value.
Secondly, one could come up with many different advertising slogans, like “It is our job to make sure that the most convenient payments network is also the most private,” and so on.
But if you think about it for a bit, you’ll figure it out yourself, or if you’re too lazy to think, you can just read on the internet: “most private” has never been and will never be “most convenient.”
Traders are concerned about tainted funds not on their own initiative, but because regulators force them to. Do you really think it’s that simple to just come in and say: “Guys, you have all these KYC rules, anti-money laundering procedures, and so on – it’s easy, just use zcash – here, no one can figure out who paid whom, we call this superior fungibility, and everything becomes legal. No questions, no more procedures, and no tainted funds” 
