Topic: Thoughts on Zcash? - page 56. (Read 123361 times)

We need only assume that a hacker cannot gain control of all parties involved in the setup.

It only takes one faithful participant to make the setup secure...

Zcash requires a trusted setup. That's a huge problem. One of the foundational points of crypto is that we shouldn't have to trust anyone....only math.

A trusted setup also means that the Zcash team could print their own Zcash and nobody would necessarily know it ever happened.

Let's say that all of the Zcash core team is trustworthy. Fine, but it's still an assumption. Now, what if a hacker gained control of one of their accounts? They also could "print" their own Zcash without anyone necessarily knowing, inflating the Zcash economy.

Also, check out Zcash website and look at the loads of academic, government, and banking people involved with the project. To me, that makes them even more untrustworthy. Yet another foundational point of cryptocurrencies: you shouldn't need to rely on government or big banks, and Zcash has waded deep into both of those pools.

Bottom line: if you have to trust people, it's flawed from the start. You should only have to trust math.

Read more:

https://blog.okturtles.com/2016/03/the-zcash-catch/

http://weuse.cash/2016/06/09/btc-xmr-zcash/

Just go with Monero: open source, fully decentralized, no trusted setup, totally private, untraceable,and fungible.

ZCASH, if it ever happens, will use a zero knowledge proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof

Fungibility is created by virtue of the degree of anonymity and is a primary trait of good money, so if it's not a core element, or is designed badly, then you should feel threatened by your own development team.

Does zcash have anything new?
There are quite a number of CN coins providing anonymity and they are live, unlike this coin which people say from time how good it is, but it's always beta.

@qwizzie
I have no ideas where from my post you saw that Monero is threatened. I am sure here you did not ment the coin itself. Who you meant? Those that own Monero or those opensource developers that just finished Ring CT?
Also i dont see any discrediting in my post and the 2 posts i quoted.  

What I did was just said that Monero developers just finished Ring CT that will be tested and Zcash postponed start once again.   That is nor being threatened, nor wanting discrediting anyone. But it is a fact that fits in thread with Title "Thoughts on Zcash?"

It seems Monero feels so threatened by Zcash that it started its campaign to discredit Zcash early.... i predict a flame-war from Monero towards Zcash
on this forum, that will make the Monero-Dash flame war small in comparison.

Anyways i think Zcash will have an impact on those cryptocurrencies that have anonymity and anonymity only as core-element
  

It seems Monero started running in the Race of anonymity and the opposition is still crawling.

ZCash comparisons to Monero are on topic on the new Monero Stack Exchange

Monero, Zcash privacy and security comparison

Sidechain idea

As you said:


"A.I will not replace human creativity", which i totally agree, but people will need to adapt... it's like the old journalist who still didnt learn to use internet and refuses to abadon the paper.

technology will end some jobs but it will also create others.

Zcash will be BIG

No idea which exchanges will pick Z-cash up, but given that anonymity is the core USP, would expect most buyers to want shapeshift or bitsquare to pick it up early. That said, slow mine start means there won't be much available for quite some time post-launch.

Speaking of which, if you've got a little time, come and say hello here: https://forum.bitsquare.io/t/zcash-geeks-here-with-the-indiamikezulu-guys/359/9

Mark

when and on what the stock market will trade Zcash?

ZCash: Zooko offers 'assistance' to Gcash team. Concerned much?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Zcash/comments/4u7v2f/if_anyones_interested_in_joining_us_well_be/

You introduced ai's creativity and Kurzweil--I mentioned that computers can create (they are already producing music, paintings and drawings). I may not agree on your interpretation of creativity or intelligence, but if you are going to play the physics card, I can't argue along those lines anymore than you can argue about postmodern thought in literature to any great degree--we all have our own specialties. Now, Bloom argues that modern human thought was invented by Shakespeare, all the characters we portray in our lives are just poor to great portrayals of the Shakespeare character, which somewhat falls in line with poetry critics and poets thought that a poem is a new pattern of human thought aligning our neurons with patterns of sound (rhythm, rhyme, ect.) image and absractions that create an emotion in the hearer and that a great poem or play acts as a meme dispensary and changes the culture by breaking out of old thought patterns and into new ones. Your thoughts?

To be honest, I think human thought and the evolution of thoughts can be replicated and created in such a way that it can evolve into new patterns. I have no way to state this with physics, but to my mind, most modern thought is run through the filter of primitive and modern language systems--but maybe it is that primitive brain signal(s) that got us where we are today, but that doesn't mean we can't and won't find artificial means to further help our brain development.

If A.I. will just be another tool that humans use (as I have argued is the case), then I don't know why you brought up A.I. in the first place. All the value will still come from the creativity (serendipity) of humans.

I've never heard Kurweil state that AI will be perfect, more that it will augment human intelligence with artificial means--if nanobots stimulate neural activity and help us make a direct link to a computer system to enhance our memory and available information, that is AI--and that will likely exist. You keep arguing with things that I never wrote, please stop. You are simply taking systems that help humans now and incorporating them into humans more directly, so it is symbiotic process that leads to greater human potential.

If Kurzweil ever stated that AI is a perfection or anything else, you can go argue with him about it--I never made any such claim.