RT @slush_pool: Welp, we certainly don't censor any kind of #Zcash transactions. #JustSaying ;) Moreover, today marks a day when we send out the first payouts to shielded Z addresses! Because privacy matters. 🔐 https://t.co/IpWFv9HcEN
Why should any one using a blockchain be forced to make private transactions?
Everyone should have the right to make whatever type of transaction they want. Making privacy opt-out rather than opt-in is not the same as removing optional privacy.
I read the article, and it seems to me that "censoring" is a little bit of a strong word. All you have is a pool with 18% of the hash refusing to mine some of shielded transactions. I think this has to do with shielded transactions taking longer to verify, and thus making mining them at a higher cost. This has happened on Bitcoin network as well when some mining pools briefly refused to mine segwit transaction (because segwit transactions are cheaper than regular transactions, yet they are roughly the same size in bytes).
In the long run, it is helpful to have all ZCash wallets use shielded transactions by default.
>I think this has to do with shielded transactions taking longer to verify, and thus making mining them at a higher cost.
The article states:
>Verification of shielded transactions is not more expensive than it is for regular transactions (it’s generating the proofs that is expensive, not verifying them).
The article claims that, but if shielded transactions are the same expensive than the regular transactions, then why wouldn't F2Pool mine them?
Makes me think that for some reasons F2Pool is seeing shielded transactions having a higher cost.
>Makes me think that for some reasons F2Pool is seeing shielded transactions having a higher cost.
Maybe they have an ASIC/FPGA which isn't capable verifying them? Could be just a size problem, since shielded tx as far as I know are significantly larger than simple unshielded...
We can only speculate about the reason of them not including these kind of transactions. The fact of the matter is that there is a possibility for censorship due to shielded transaction being optional, which is a significant weakness.
I don't think it's actually the most used cryptocurrency. Only 1.3% of its activity is in merchant transactions. [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-31/bitcoin-s-rally-masks-uncomfortable-fact-almost-nobody-uses-it](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-31/bitcoin-s-rally-masks-uncomfortable-fact-almost-nobody-uses-it)
For all we know Monero might be more actively used, as far as actual medium of exchange goes.
The creation of Bitcoin was a reasonable reaction to the Global Financial Crisis in 2008. The original vision of P2P Electronic Cash is a good vision. But the Bitcoin network was only a first effort, and no sane computer engineer expects their first effort to be a good solution. [Pilot Projects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month#The_pilot_system) exist to light the way forward; they help you get the lay of the land and then you throw them away and write the real solution. Bitcoin maximalists still don't get that they're flogging something that was never capable of delivering the ultimate goal.
Still number 1 by market cap, by very far, and the most secure, by very far... I like privacy like you... I am not sure though that most people care. Also with the lightning network privacy will get a lot better
> Still number 1 by market cap, by very far, and the most secure, by very far.
Predominantly caused due to network effects though (I am not saying that is a bad thing).
>Also with the lightning network privacy will get a lot better
It will somewhat improve privacy for payments made on the Lightning Network, yes. However, you still have to settle on the main chain and your balance will still be visible on the mainchain. In addition, see:
It’s not because it will require a hard fork. It’s because implementing privacy has the potential to compromise the bitcoin monetary policy. In a private blockchain it might be possible for someone to covertly create coins, thus inflating the currency. This will never be an acceptable risk for Bitcoin.
I hope you're right. But gut tells me Zcash or another centralize option will win.
Being a company can have its perks with getting government approval. And allow ease of access via exchanges.
For US-based exchanges zcash (coinbase/gemini) is the "privacy" option.
If companies/governments can control the narrative the masses will follow. ZCash is that "triple dark web scans" that creditors/banks offer. A complete joke but marketing well to the ignorant.
Monero will always have its niche market and those who have a little technical knowledge will be able to get it (Most likely only one who need it too). But I don't see it ever being easily available to the masses. Simple because of the lack of control and oversight.
I disagree. At the end of the day, people will use what they want. Zcash and coinbase might work for now, but if people want true privacy, they can get monero. It's become simple enough to use it with easy to use apps/wallete and remote nodes... Coinbase doesn't even allow shielded transactions.
The only thing I hope we can streamline is making it easier to acquire monero... Right now it's not the easiest thing to get.
Zcash is already dead, just too dumb to realize it yet. This is a pretty strong statement coming from a company like Deloitte; they were strong Zcash enthusiasts before.
> For US-based exchanges
To be clear, Monero is listed on prominent and regulated U.S. based exchanges as well, i.e.:
In addition, the following U.S. based OTC firms offer Monero:
- Cumberland mining
- Kraken OTC desk
- Circle OTC desk
- Galaxy digital (Mike Novogratz) OTC desk
Genesis capital also has Monero available in some form:
Now, Zcash is listed on Coinbase and Gemini because the NYDFS signed off on them, likely after extensive discussion with the company. This is an advantage, but I don't see why they couldn't eventually sign off on Monero too (even though there is no company behind Monero). Besides, a U.S. company owning a supposedly private cryptocurrency is arguably a net negative. Lastly, while listings are important, they do not guarantee a prosperous future.