is this a shit coin?

>>3509980

thank you

It's a privacy coin with no privacy.

So yes.

>>3509980
I think he's just trying to provide a defense against any possible later legal accusations that Zcash was built for enabling black-market trade. "Judge, we considered adding anti-privacy features to Zcash ... but it would have required a hard fork and our polling showed that no one would have switched to the hard fork."

Zcash doesn't presently have any anti-privacy features in it. It would take some hard-fork change to force them onto users.

>>3509974
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/wiki/comparison##zcash

File: Capture+_2017-09-16-22-18-04.png (257KB, 1439x1081px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1439x1081px

>>3510020
Lol

>>3510035
Peter Todd's word plus the word of the other trusted-setup-members is good enough for me. They'd all have to be lying in order for any of them to take advantage and secretly mint any zcash.
https://petertodd.org/2016/cypherpunk-desert-bus-zcash-trusted-setup-ceremony

>>3510035
You don't trust Israeli jews with your keys?

>>3510050
You're delusional. Zcash is a Mossad operation they not only have our key they also know every site you've ever visited, have surveilance on you through your smart devices and all of this goes in your file wth the keys to your money.

Only a fool would use this coin.

File: trash.jpg (31KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x400px

>not trustless
>not fungible
>only 4% of Zcash transactions are private
>creators can collude to generate an unlimited, undetectable amount of coins

File: IMG_1717.jpg (59KB, 962x642px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 962x642px

>>3510067
>>3510090
>>/pol/
The Jews are our friends

>>3510093
You have two points and you're double-counting both of them.

>not trustless
>creators can collude to generate an unlimited, undetectable amount of coins
The only part not trustless was the initial setup.
If any of them did their part correctly and deleted their key from the setup, then they can't collude later. If Zcash spikes to be the most popular cryptocurrency and all of the trusted-setup-participants all decide they really want to abuse the system ... it doesn't matter as long as at least one of them already deleted their key. There's no undoing that.

It's a little bit more trust required than a fully-decentralized system like Bitcoin. But the anonymity from zk-snarks is so good that I think it's worth it. Zk-snarks are practically a crypto primitive made in heaven for anonymous cryptocurrency. (Monero's shenanigans with ring signatures are impressive, but I have a little less trust that they've done everything right than I have trust in Zcash's setup.)

>not fungible
... This is a reference to anonymous transactions being optional, right?
>only 4% of Zcash transactions are private
Who cares if dumbfucks don't mark all of their transactions as anonymous, as long as you make your own transactions anonymous?
Even if someone like an exchange doesn't support sending an anonymous transaction to you, all you have to do is have them send to a fresh address of yours, and then you do an anonymous transaction from there to your main address.

>>3510163
>If any of them did their part correctly
Tells why this is and always will be a shitcoin

>>3510163
>Who cares if dumbfucks don't mark all of their transactions

Kek, you give all the reasons why ZCash is a shitcoin

>>3510163
>The only part not trustless was the initial setup.
There is no way to audit Zcash to ensure whether or not the trusted setup has failed, will ever fail in the future, or was compromised from the start.
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/861722253788160000

>Who cares if dumbfucks don't mark all of their transactions as anonymous, as long as you make your own transactions anonymous?
Since a majority of the blockchain is transparent, those who do use the privacy features stand out, and there may be the potential risk for an attacker to "isolate the few users who are using the privacy features. In Bitcoin, transactions appear suspicious if mixing services are used. For ZCash, this is basically the same story. For Monero, few transactions appear suspicious because they all look similar.

Why would anyone want to use this for-profit, potentially compromised, corporate coin over Monero?

>>3510197
Peter Todd is a bitcoin core developer and is absolutely loaded from being in bitcoin early on. He doesn't have any need to have held onto his zcash setup key.
There's a chance he was compromised somehow, but his obsessive write-up does a lot to address that possibility.

>>3510251
The Zcash devs have found a way to make anonymous transactions 95% faster to create, so it seems likely that they'll finally become default in the future.

>Why would anyone want to use this for-profit, potentially compromised, corporate coin over Monero?
Because for me,
trust(any of them did the trusted setup right) + trust(zk-snarks were implemented right for fully anonymous transactions) < trust(monero's leaning tower of ring signatures are designed and implemented right for anonymous transactions)

* zk-snarks are practically the perfect primitive for anonymous transactions. Monero has to layer on a lot of clever tricks to get almost comparable anonymity.
* Zcash's dev team includes actual established cryptographers. They don't make mistakes like https://getmonero.org/2017/05/17/disclosure-of-a-major-bug-in-cryptonote-based-currencies.html

>>3510314
>trust(any of them did the trusted setup right) + trust(zk-snarks were implemented right for fully anonymous transactions) < trust(monero's leaning tower of ring signatures are designed and implemented right for anonymous transactions)
By "trust(...)" I meant something like "trust necessary for ... to be true".

This coin is actually the easiest to mine - usually in the top three in mining calculators. That seems to me to be the only reason why it's valued at $200. People GPU mine it and convert it to BTC.