On 08/28/2016 12:40 PM, lupa wrote: > Hi all, > > Do you know this project? https://z.cash/ > > What do you think about it ? > > thanks! > >
Really cool idea from a security perspective, I've been hoping to see something like this. But, as others pointed out, it has potentially undesirable political consequences. In my opinion, this is because it treats every transaction as ethically neutral, even though it is arguable that there are times when people deserve to know where money is going, such as how large corporations spend their money. But that's exactly what the CASH in ZCash is, isn't it? It's like physical money (which, sans fingerprints, is just as untraceable) -- on steroids, because you don't have to physically be in front of the person to hand them anything. The cryptography replaces the physical world. Let's address the potential for tax evasions and so on. There's no doubt that something like ZCash would be in demand by humble individuals who pay their taxes and only intend to (for example) securely donate to people they've never met (software projects, indie music, indie media). Shady corporations trying to evade taxes would also find it interesting for other reasons. As a result, you get the wild west of currency, even more so than bitcoin. The question I have is how does one inject ethics without undermining the security? How does one maintain that level of security without undermining ethics? How does one have their cake and eat it? Because that is the most interesting thing to me. Everything I had read over the years with regard to security points at it being an all-or-nothing principle: security for all, privacy for all. This being a good and sometimes bad thing, depending on the circumstances and the people. Nonetheless, if you undermine security for some, and you undermine it for all. Perhaps a solution would be found externally to the currency: for example, to require certain organizations to practice transparency (meaning they HAVE to provide view keys, or else they can't use ZCash if they want to keep their doors open), but that doesn't stop them from -- just as it is with physical cash -- fudging the numbers a bit and using ZCash to conceal a small percentage of transactions. Devil's advocate: Even the extensive measures put in place to watch over transactions in modern economies don't seem to have helped organizations (especially large corporations) behave any better. It causes me to ask whether something like ZCash would ultimately make any difference in that area? Perhaps the bar would be lowered since (in the corporate criminal mastermind's head) instead of offshore banking you have ZCash. Which means that in order to sanction them, you would have to be a little more creative, but it's probably doable. Bearing in mind that physical cash has been around for centuries, and haven't we developed systems to deal with that?... It's worth noting that the other side of the 'coin' here, the side that ZCash is on, is the ethical necessity of private transactions. There is no doubt that sometimes people need that transaction privacy, for ethically good, or simply personal, reasons. It seems hard to imagine any currency that can evaluate the good from the bad players, but it is getting late and I should get some shuteye. Just my thoughts on that. Anyone else?
