very interesting, need a key to access the details of blockchain transactions which makes it anonymous instead of pseudonymous.
Cool, it uses zk-SNARK’s! First actual implementation of them in the crypto-currency scene that I know of. That’s pretty amazing, their code should be interesting for SAFE as well. They can be used for all kinds of anonymous proofs, including secure and anonymous voting systems, anonymous distributed computing, etc.
As for Zcash and blockchain technology in general, my main concern is still with scalability.
Before Safecoin, this was a big one for me. Anonymous transactions are important for a currency to be fungible, never mind anything else. It is a big negative for Bitcoin currently.
However, Safecoin is potentially far more elegant and efficient and could scale much better. In addition, if the encryption is comprised, there is no journal to interrogate, unlike blockchain solutions.
Interesting tech though. I just think safenet can do much better.
I’m very excited to see this happening, a very commendable team with very similar goals to this community (part of the team is from Tahoe LAFS)… and ya, I wonder how they’ll take to scaling. I’ll definitely be using both safecoin and zcash because why not?
Re: bitcoin scaling - there’s also discussion from the Lightning Network crew about using onion routing for improving anonymity which could be an interesting complimentary technology for zcash.
I think they will definitely bring great tech but launching a coin in this wilderness won’t be fast nor easy…
So do people send Bitcoin (or other basecoin) to the Z cash System, which then generates zcoins, or are coins somehow mined?
I’m wondering if the value of zcoins will effectively be tied to Bitcoin’s value as they’d be interchangeable?
If so, it sounds like it’d fix Bitcoin’s Scalability problem for cash payments if people started to use it.
zcash is based off of bitcoin metrics (with PoW) and carries the same scaling problems along with it.
I see - I misunderstood the ‘such proofs are less than 300 bytes long and can be verified in only a few milliseconds’ on their website to mean the network will verify transactions within a few milliseconds, which doesn’t follow.
I must say, their communication is not at all clear - it’s hard to get a grip of any parameters of their proposed system from their website, e.g. transaction capacity, number of coins, distribution methods etc etc.
I’ve read yesterday somewhere that they’ll bring a whitepaper where they are currently still working on. Also there comes a comparison (don’t know if it’s in the whitepaper or not) with other technologies that currently are using/developing anon techniques.
Peter Todd is a firstclass dickwad, his claims about Bitcoin problems are hand-wavy at best (and at worst he is actively working towards the goal of making Bitcoin unusable),
He also came to Troon and started making grand proclamations about how MaidSafe is not possible because Google could take them down. He has a history of making such claims and not backing them up…
I would take his claims with a ton of salt
First of all, that was a tweet by Matt Green who is a lead dev on zcash talking to Peter. Not sure why you even brought Peter up… but because you did, I shall respond. I know the backstory of Peter going to Troon (both sides) and I’ve personally debated SAFE with him including his Google attack which is actually the same problem @GabrielDVine brings up in this thread. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to question this attack… it’s SAFE that has to prove this attack is improbable and that comes with testing.
Sure, Peter’s got an ego and ya, he tends to critique without giving positive solutions… but I suspect that’s his method of roping people in so they pay for consulting (that’s how he earns an income, afterall).
Anyways… back to the topic!
Thanks for the shoutout, Paige @ioptio. I’m surprised and chuffed to discover I independently came up with an attack vector analysis that Peter Todd also saw. In my opinion, Peter is an invaluable thinker in the crypto space, despite his often-contentious tone. He was one of the early figures to accuse Mike Hearn of straight-up trolling (an accurate assessment in hindsight).
I will say this: on paper, many many people saw “insurmountable” issues with Bitcoin too, and yet here we are: https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate . . . .
Dude, I think you’ve got it.
But I would add a couple more. In order of importance regarding “blockchain” technologies:
- Decentralization (mining in particular - compare that to our bomb-ass “farming”)
- Admittance barrier (read: exchanges)
- Upgrade/Voting Mechanism (kinda tied in with #2 if you think about how it’s implemented now…)
Peter Todd is a firstclass dickwad
Morality is subjective. I disagree. He is a great asset to the community. He does things that nobody touches, and shows to the world, “hey look, security is flawed!” He is a grey hat, not white, red, or black hat style. Think in line of “Grey Jedi.”
That being said, he already double spended last year, and nobody cared. Well it is a big deal. So he did it again to show how easy it is to break the system. Now everybody gets pissed off at him for doing it. Um yeah real nice community you got there bitcoin. “Who cares about security, and 7 billion dollar industry. Go mainstream! HUR DUR!!”
Now the focus on this project is incredible. I will invest however it scales poorly like other users said, and it will become bloated in no time. This is my big pet peeve with blockchain technology. It gets bloated, and everybody has to download the entire chain. Whereas in safenet, only 4 of the nodes get to store the same chuck. That’s it! Saves resources, time, and energy!
One of the things about Bitcoin is that Satoshi recognized this previously and even stated that with SPV nodes, everybody wouldn’t have to download the entire chain. He also admitted that full nodes (miners) would likely hit a balance point of maybe 1,000 at any given time actually maintaining the Network.
So he basically admitted that Bitcoin is a federated system that naturally allows miners to centralize in relation to the total number of users. coughCIAconspiracycough
But not only that, the miners - when it comes to regulating Core - are the only ones who have a say. If this were a truly decentralized system, everybody maintaining it would have a say. However, if it is infeasable to have the majority maintaining the system, than it is infeasible to be able to come to a majority consensus.
This is where the Network excels. The ability to have small vaults be just as viable economically as large vault farms enables the majority of the userbase - those who decide to farm - who are maintaining the Network to have a say.
Think of it this way:
Bitcoin: Barrier to “voting” entry = large economic investment (mine or die)
Average users with SPV need not apply.
SAFE Network: Barrier to “voting” entry = contribute any amount of space
Vault ranking also provides an incentive to the actors continuing to operate in good faith.
You can see that while Bitcoin’s voting system is binary (Either you mine - you go all in - or you don’t) the Network’s is flexible (any amount of space is enough).
P.S. Sorry - that totally veered OT, that relationship had been something that I have been thinking about for a while now.
I think the marketing of this project is top notch. The function also seems way cool, but I cannot get passed this is closed sourced and controlled by a corporation…I’m I missing something here?
thanks for sharing, its very informative! @MrAnderson you should have a look too.
"Zcash is a decentralized and open-source cryptocurrency that offers
privacy and selective transparency of transactions. Zcash payments are
published on a public blockchain, but the sender, recipient, and amount
of a transaction remain private.
Zcash is based on peer-reviewed cryptographic research, and built by a
security-specialized engineering team on an open source platform based
on Bitcoin Core’s battle-tested codebase."
interestingly, they dont advertise it the way i would. i dunno… I also wonder how xmr will react to this…