Since when has any regard been paid to large ZEC holders, with respect to what builder initiatives happen next?
In my years on the forum, I’ve never seen any interest or practice of giving large ZEC holders a vote in what happens next.
Seems peculiar to be using that idea as a point to discourage John’s hopes here for a next step in Zcash.
So here’s a question, why not do both?
What’s preventing someone who supports Zcash as a L2 from simply doing it? Zcash is open source after all.
Make a proof of concept that it works, show whatever ways it’s superior to L1 Zcash, then come back and convince everyone to burn their L1 Zcash to gain tokens on a L2 chain.
I’m not signed up for their forums, but as a past Celo staker, I was a bit caught off guard by the L2 announcement. TBH, my initial reaction was unfavorable because Id rather Celo be independent. I love the idea of making cell phone’s first, which is why I played with celo and valora. @Jgx7 you might be interested with this project as they have some interesting ideas with stablecoins
Yes, Celo’s strength is ease of use, speed, and algorithmic stablecoin use. Zcash is base layer privacy that can be used as digital cash, digital gold, or what ever folks need it for, but it might be harder to use for most folks.
bold and supports L1 base privacy, why not?
Celo isn’t specifically the beacon of top engineering talent. Not to mention, they had no unique selling proposition. Zcash has/had top talent from the beginning, and the selling point of privacy.
Don’t lose the forest for the trees.
Also Brave is also a fan as it turns out!
What security concerns are you speaking about? Are you talking about the fact that sometime in the future once all coins are mined there will be no mining reward and therefore no incentive for miners to secure the network?
If thats what you are saying I have thought about this issue also and its very concerning no one has thought about it more here.
@Jgx7 keeps talking about adding a gas mechanism. It’s definitely been discussed. This forum software is just incredibly crappy for discovery.
Can you please provide some links? I think this is something that needs to be taken more seriously. We are already ahead of BTC in terms of privacy If we can solve this issue it puts us even further. In addition to this we must ensure we can keep fees low and scale with increased usage.
3 posts were merged into an existing topic: Moderation feedback
It is possible! For example, let’s say Celestia upgrades to 2 second block times so it can act as a relatively fast shared sequencer. If we have a rollup using Celestia as a shared sequencer, with data eventually posted to, and settlement happening on, Bitcoin and another rollup using Celestia as its L1 and sequencing layer, these rollups will be able to trust the sequencer for x-rollup transactions between them. I guess the celestia rollup would consider this confirmation final and the Bitcoin rollup would consider this as a econonically backed, BFT preconfirmation.
In Espresso (disclaimer, I work there), we can support alternative settlement layers by building a bridge between the Espresso Sequencer DA and the other settlement layer. I say alternative because the Espresso Sequencer has an L1 contract on Ethereum. (see here)
Honestly, I think I agree with the decentralization point. WRT privacy only L1s, I’m curious if you can require miners/validators to include shielded transactions w/o view keys in blocks. I’ve heard @sethforprivacy say that monero does something along this lines (it was on a Twitter spaces 1.5~ years ago, so could be remembering it wrong).
But, to your last point, I fully agree. I think as long as Zcash’s primary usage is transparent transactions, it negates the argument that it’s more CR than Bitcoin (or any other L1 conceptually) due to L1 privacy. features.
This is possible. It’s likely the next best step!
Hi everyone, as mentioned in the ECC update around Zeboot, I was in Palm Springs to discuss this proposal. Based on conversations leading up to the presentation, the vibe shifted to a collaborative discussion around how to make Zcash “more modular”. Please excuse potential errors in definitions below:
The most promising idea was around enabling the Zcash L1 to verify offchain computation (e.g. smart contract execution) from other execution environments (blockchains). We discussed other things such as ZKP aggregation, and Zcash as a shielded DA layer for L2s settling on other blockchains, that would support design.
So while this “proposal” likely won’t result in Zcash becoming a sovereign rollup, it did drive some very interesting research discussions. For a follow up, I will be meeting with some Zcashers next week to discuss next steps. I would love to continue research discussions around a more modular version of Zcash.
I appreciate members of the Zcash research community for engaging with me in good faith, and I believe the discussions held will result in positive outcomes.
The CEO from Sovereign Labs let me know they’re going to support a Zcash VM in the Sovereign SDK. Exciting! https://x.com/cemozer_/status/1769739337673908557?s=20
I recently had some success building a Zcash rollup for a hackathon. It ended up being fairly straightforward to take the state transition from Zebra and run it inside the Cartesi VM.
Definitely just a hack though. Transactions are very expensive and it relies on a single operator. But interested to see where this can go.
You did this in the cartesi VM? congrats + super interesting! I’m pretty close with their team and will send this over to them now 
