Topic: Thoughts on Zcash? - page 67. (Read 123361 times)

That's a logical contradition. If the payer reveals thier identity, it is revealed, full stop.

Yeah! Everybody knows Tor is precisely 98% reliable same as the internet and precisely 98% anonymous which is much better than the internet. That TPTB tried to pull the wool over our eyes.

And everybody knows that when a payer reveals his or her identity to the recipient of the transaction, then it is still necessary to employ Tor to hide the IP address from the recipient because otherwise the recipient would know the identity of the payer.

Your logic is clearly superior to AnnoyingMint's drivel.

He claims that you don't need to use Tor/I2P to hide your IP if you are using zerocash because the transactions are so opaque even revealing your IP does not matter. I'm sure there is a narrow way of looking at it that makes that the case, but overall, I don't agree and the Zcash developers don't agree (they are integrating Tor).

Monero works with a Tor proxy and will have I2P integrated. Dash (and Bitcoin) works with Tor.

That insolent banned narcissist claimed the main difference is that the IP address and other markers of activity could be correlated to specific UXTO on the ring of potential payers and that this was not possible in Zcash. And he arrogantly claimed that this was some fundamental distinction. Thanks for the clarifying slogan.

There are no mixers or third parties in Monero. You construct the transactions entirely on your own (can even be done offline). Dash does use a masternode to coordinate coinjoin transactions, which is sort of like a mixer, although it can't steal your coins.

Functionally the main difference between Monero and Zcash (esp. after RingCT is integrated) is that Zcash has a larger anonymity set at the level of individual transactions (all previous users) than Monero (some randomly chosen subset of previous users). In practice the difference is likely somewhat narrower, but difficult to fully characterize.

The trade off for that difference in anonymity set is a wide gap in efficiency, a wide gap in cryptographic complexity and maturity, probably a gap in implementation maturity, the trusted setup, some functional limitations, and some stronger cryptographic assumptions (meaning more ways it can break, but not necessarily to a degree that is a huge concern).

Anyway given that Monero already uses cryptography rather than mixing, the option to swap out the cryptography with zerocash exists, just as regular ring signatures are now being swapped out with RingCT. There are no current plans to do so for the above reasons, but if zerocash techniques become more mature and trusted (and perhaps efficient), and it becomes clear that's what users want, it could be done at some point.

tldr, these are both serious, credible cryptographic techniques to deliver private transactions, with different advantages and disadvantages.

Turing completeness implies unbounded recursion.

If it was indeed Turing complete, it can replace itself.

Nevermind the inconvenient fundamentals. Stay focused on to da moon.

In theory. You know an old joke comes in mind about "in theory". Let me share it:

You can only create things on top of etherium, you cannot replace etherium itself.

edit: Analogy: facebook apps run on top of facebook, they cannot replace facebook itself.

In theory Turing complete block chain scripting can script new altcoins.

If truly open ended scripting is plausible, then everything is subsumed. Hmmm.

Isn´t that even a critical thing to achieve before we can even start to cheer for Zcash?

The core protocol contains the functionality to transfer ether; you cannot rewrite that from the EVM, which you would need to do to add anonymity.

I wrote "in theory". If the scripts are not truly Turing complete, then it is possible the core protocol has some limitations which would preclude implementing certain features. Whether or not Z.cash can or can not be implemented in Ethereum's scripting model is unknown since Ethereum has not been finalized.

Just remember, "Ethereum can do anything because it has scripting". 80/20. Remain focused. Buy the dips.

An EVM app must obey the rules of the core blockchain protocol; it cannot rewrite them.

A Turing complete script can read and write data on the block chain, so in theory it can do anything a block chain core protocol can do. Of course performance and other issues may be not be optimal. Yet one can reason that the script can be hard or soft forked into the core protocol to improve efficiency if there is popular demand for the feature.

Z.cash's problem is that a more popular altcoin can steal their technology.

One feature altcoins are a dead end.

The future belongs to the altcoin which can swallow everything and spread adoption because of being multi-faceted. Currency is the most widely used medium-of-exchange.

Academics are not usually savvy businessmen.


11% of the coins to be paid to the foundation or developers. Thus the world has an incentive to fork their coin.

Buying the launch hype though might be a great speculation trade.

So?  And even if they did, they'd make XMR and Dash look second rate and amateur, right from development to marketing.  And I don't mean that with any malice or hold something personal to DASH or Monero (holding some XMR right now actually).  It's just I see Zcash and think it's way more professional right from the start.

.... Post from your actual account and then maybe we will consider what you have to say. Obvious sock puppet is obvious.

Even still, a re-tweet hardly constitutes as an endorsement. I am sure he stands behind Zerocash tech and was genuinely interested in RingCT for academic purposes. Pretty much all of the Zcash guys hail from academia.

This is why I never seriously supported Monero. I have claimed repeatedly over the past couple years that better technology would come along and render it useless. I recently invested a little into Monero, because its marketing on these forums is on point, but it is really just a safety net in case Zcash crashes and burns. As long as the initial parameters for Zcash can be generated in a transparent manner, then I have no doubts it will take over the "anon coin" market.

You might want to check your facts. Many smart people (and ZeroCash team members) are watching what Monero is doing with RingCT right now:

Yup, its proper anonymity.  As in direct anonymous payments, no mixers, no 3rd parties, nada.

My only real issue is that it might have difficulty scaling and I have some performance concerns that will come into effect if it achieves such larger scales.

For example verify time of a POUR is 5.4ms on an i7-4770, which gives a max processing performance on that CPU of about 200 per second per thread (I'm assuming multi-threading POUR verification is trivial) ignoring other overheads such as IO.  It might take some time to sync up a couple million transactions.

Mobile device support will likely be a no-no too, as the POUR process takes about 2 minutes to run on that i7, so mobile devices will be 10x at least.  Punchy hardware only please for that

Im not aware of any performance improvements recently though (and I haven't really had the time to check up), so if anyone knows of any information, I'd appreciate a link/reference to it.

No seriously.  The tech their team is trying to develop will make Dash and Monero look second rate.

I forgot to include this coin on my "next mega pump" list.  

I have been waiting years for this coin! Although, their disclaimer for the alpha is kind of scary... I guess we should wait for the beta?