 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
|
I'm writing this in my personal capacity not as community manager and my experience as a lawyer and this is to answer the accusation that founders are just swimming in their founder's reward. This is not based on any inside info but my own deductions. For marketing, although i'm not privy to how they spend it, you can see the ads that are popping up on Zcoin so there's some marketing ad spend going on there. But let's get into the nitty gritty which I think a lot of people are not thinking clearly about. First of all, Roger Ver's investment is real. It has been disclosed EXPLICITLY in bitcoin.com publications (which Roger owns), confirmed by other independent members approaching him directly, regularly posts on his MemoryDealers account in Reddit in Zcoin and created a sub-forum for it in Bitcoin forums. He still remains invested. https://news.bitcoin.com/zero-knowledge-zcoin-launching-soon/ (see the disclaimer) https://www.reddit.com/r/ZCoinProject/First of all there were definitely certain agreements in place when obtaining investor funding for Zcoin (or as it was then named Moneta). This is what made the project possible in the first place. It is common for these investors to choose to remain anonymous. Only Roger has stepped forward to confirm he is an investor but I don't think you can blame the founders for not disclosing the others especially since the investors are the one who funded Zcoin and their wishes should be respected. Note that backing a privacy coin can be controversial and not everyone may want to come forward. With Zcash, which is a much more high profile investment with serious marketing dollar, there's bound to be more investors who are willing to be public. Now to the next point, I think it's naive to think that these investors didn't have certain stakes in the growth and reward of the coin. They need a return on their investment. With no premine, there's the founder's reward. The most logical thing is to assume that some investors are entitled to certain payouts. The whole project started when it was Moneta in 2015 and much time has passed and only about one month back was it launched. Now that a milestone has been achieved (coin launch and listing), some investors may want to recoup part of their investment back while others decide to hold. Where would this payout come from? It may be, to be paid in XZC or it may be 'interest' on their investment or a share of the founder's reward. If you watch Shark Tank, you'll know what I'm talking about. This also makes sense on a contractual standpoint. Gary and Poramin both mentioned NDAs which are also common and they may not be able to disclose the identity, the size of the investment and their entitlements from their investment. Now they are asked to explain the wallets being drained, but bound by the NDA, now you can imagine the situation they are in. In frustration, Gary said well when Zcash is transparent about their expenditure, they will be too which was received negatively but the fact is a much larger project like Zcash that's involving a lot more money is not subject to scrutiny because big names are involved while with Zcoin, the only known big name is Roger. Again, Zcoin's funding is i think many many many many times smaller than Zcash's and yet I think it is impressive they managed to get out a WORKING implementation of Zerocoin and minting. Bounties are also being paid for website design, coding work, community management, recruitment activities, marketing and also with important partners to increase adoption. If you follow their slack you know that Poramin is full time working hard to implement MTP and improve Zcoin and I'm in almost daily contact with Gary and Poramin. WARNING: BolehVPN is at best a scam and at worst a honey pot. Exhibit A is the post above, where Boleh's lawyer kisses Roger Ver's ass until his lips are chapped. Embracing a bad actor like Bitcoin Judas is a red flag. Exhibit B is BolehVPN's embrace of the instamined scamcoin known as Dash (alias Darkcoin, Xcoin) despite its fake privacy theater and rejection of Monero's military or better grade crypto. Exhibit C is BolehVPN's lawyer wittering on about obvious scams like Zcoin and Zcash, as if one of those scams is better than the other. AirVPN.org and Cryptostorm.is are both world class options if you want a real VPN that is not associated with scumbags like BolehVPN, Dash, Roger Ver, Zcoin, and Zcash. Nice personal attack that has no point and reviving an ancient post. You worked hard. First of all, nice to finally see a Monero troll. Guess Zcoin got noticed. Secondly I have a strong respect of Monero tech and many of the people involved in it. In fact Bolehvpn accepts Monero too with a 10% discount for quite a long while now. The only reason I didn't want to initially was because of people like you that threatened boycotting my business for accepting Dash. I don't respond well to threats. Speaking to the more reasonable and welcoming members of the Monero community including Needmoney90 made me reconsider and not apply a broad sweeping brush. Heck I even respect fluffypony. He's a smart guy. The post was way back before Roger Ver was a controversial figure and people were questioning whether it was true he invested in us since it was seen as a plus. Lets not go talk about scams when Monero had its fair share of issues including not providing privacy despite being the 'best privacy coin' for many years even when accepted on the darknet as confirmed by multiple researchers. SOURCE: https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/338 https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.04299And whether Dash is a scam or not... Well guess what Monero had its own questionable launch too. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1435385.0Mistakes happen even with the best of efforts and is the nature of the tech. But don't go throwing stones and calling projects scams. I still hold the Monero project in high regard. Just not the toxicity in segments of its fanbase. |
|
|
|
many miners go to zcash, from the standpoint of mining vrt looks good, but price ... and a view of the future looks badly oh badly  Zcash does look interesting. I'm waiting for it to settle before I do anything with it. The price started around 1.5 btc and now it's around .2 btc . The creator of vertcoin made that . Poramin didn't make Zcash (or Zcoin). His former professor at Johns Hopkins, Matthew Green, is an author on both of the papers describing these protocols ( http://zerocoin.org/media/pdf/ZerocoinOakland.pdf and http://zerocash-project.org/media/pdf/zerocash-extended-20140518.pdf ), Poramin Insom is not. The creator of vertcoin (Poramin) implemented zerocoin, first in a closed source scam called Zerovert, and now later in a hugely instamined coin called Zcoin. He is unaffiliated with Zcash (which is also scammy) afaik. The closed source 'scam' is explained here: When Zerovert was launched in November 2014, it was primarily an experiment and we didn't have any investor backing. We still wanted to protect our work and thus our only choice at that time was to make Zerovert closed source so that it could not be copied. However we quickly realized that in the cryptocurrency world, closed source software made it almost impossible for our project to be vetted and hence taken seriously so we were in a quandary.
Zerovert was originally intended to be part of Vertcoin's ecosystem however Vertcoin's community were not keen on it. Zerovert's also suffered from very poor performance and had huge scalability issues and therefore the project went silent while we figured out how to solve many of the challenges we faced with Zerovert.
We subsequently managed to fix many scalability issues and these changes have been incorporated into Zcoin. Starting afresh with Zcoin allowed strong investor backing from the likes of Roger Ver and allowed us to dedicate ourselves fully to this project rather than a mere experiment. With investor backing we also could finally make our code open source while still protecting our efforts. These considerations were what prompted us to wipe the slate clean with Zcoin instead of continuing with Zerovert which was never intended to be a serious project. Instamine and founder's reward are pretty different. Instamines are created upfront while founder's rewards are spread across through the time and are transparent. This ensures that the founders cannot cash out immediately and are incentivized to keep development ongoing at least for the duration of the founder's rewards (4 years in Zcoin). I spoke with Poramin has not ruled out returning to help out with Vertcoin development once he implements some important fixes with Zcoin. He had thought he had left it in good hands with two devs but when those devs moved on with life (working on startup and studying at MIT) Vertcoin's development was stalled. It wasn't the intention to 'abandon' Vertcoin and he spoke to me about how he wanted to implement EVM for Vert when has has time. |
|
|
|
I'm writing this in my personal capacity not as community manager and my experience as a lawyer and this is to answer the accusation that founders are just swimming in their founder's reward. This is not based on any inside info but my own deductions. For marketing, although i'm not privy to how they spend it, you can see the ads that are popping up on Zcoin so there's some marketing ad spend going on there. But let's get into the nitty gritty which I think a lot of people are not thinking clearly about. First of all, Roger Ver's investment is real. It has been disclosed EXPLICITLY in bitcoin.com publications (which Roger owns), confirmed by other independent members approaching him directly, regularly posts on his MemoryDealers account in Reddit in Zcoin and created a sub-forum for it in Bitcoin forums. He still remains invested. https://news.bitcoin.com/zero-knowledge-zcoin-launching-soon/ (see the disclaimer) https://www.reddit.com/r/ZCoinProject/First of all there were definitely certain agreements in place when obtaining investor funding for Zcoin (or as it was then named Moneta). This is what made the project possible in the first place. It is common for these investors to choose to remain anonymous. Only Roger has stepped forward to confirm he is an investor but I don't think you can blame the founders for not disclosing the others especially since the investors are the one who funded Zcoin and their wishes should be respected. Note that backing a privacy coin can be controversial and not everyone may want to come forward. With Zcash, which is a much more high profile investment with serious marketing dollar, there's bound to be more investors who are willing to be public. Now to the next point, I think it's naive to think that these investors didn't have certain stakes in the growth and reward of the coin. They need a return on their investment. With no premine, there's the founder's reward. The most logical thing is to assume that some investors are entitled to certain payouts. The whole project started when it was Moneta in 2015 and much time has passed and only about one month back was it launched. Now that a milestone has been achieved (coin launch and listing), some investors may want to recoup part of their investment back while others decide to hold. Where would this payout come from? It may be, to be paid in XZC or it may be 'interest' on their investment or a share of the founder's reward. If you watch Shark Tank, you'll know what I'm talking about. This also makes sense on a contractual standpoint. Gary and Poramin both mentioned NDAs which are also common and they may not be able to disclose the identity, the size of the investment and their entitlements from their investment. Now they are asked to explain the wallets being drained, but bound by the NDA, now you can imagine the situation they are in. In frustration, Gary said well when Zcash is transparent about their expenditure, they will be too which was received negatively but the fact is a much larger project like Zcash that's involving a lot more money is not subject to scrutiny because big names are involved while with Zcoin, the only known big name is Roger. Again, Zcoin's funding is i think many many many many times smaller than Zcash's and yet I think it is impressive they managed to get out a WORKING implementation of Zerocoin and minting. Bounties are also being paid for website design, coding work, community management, recruitment activities, marketing and also with important partners to increase adoption. If you follow their slack you know that Poramin is full time working hard to implement MTP and improve Zcoin and I'm in almost daily contact with Gary and Poramin. |
|
|
|
I'm confused.
I can't find any note, that there will be an ICO for Zcoin.
Zcoin will launch the mainnet on september 28.
no word about any ICO.
There is no ICO for this coin but you should still be careful because zcoin uses the "trusted set up". There is already a debate going on about how bad this is for the coin, zcash where it is cloned from. Please do your research on the "trusted set up" before attempting to be involved with this coin. With the trusted set up, it means the people who hold the keys could connive and play the role of central bank. what is trusted set up?, the only concern i have is the huge premine they have for this coin, and that the coin is heavily centralized from what ic an tell other than that i like the algo and everything else Zcoin is NOT a clone of Zcash. This has been explained countless times and based on different papers altogether and being promoted by people who don't know what they're talking about. The trusted setup in Zcoin and Zcash are also different and a trustless mechanism is being worked on. https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/wiki/Parameters-in-set-up-phase-for-Zerocoin-in-ZCoinThere is also further no premine, just a founder's reward spread over 4 years. These are very different. Zcoin uses Zerocoin technology from the Zerocoin paper. This is a very well peer reviewed paper with over 200 citations. Zcash instead uses the Zerocash paper. Although Zerocash is a development from Zerocoin meant to address certain perceived shortcomings of Zerocoin, they are not simple forks of each other and rely on different protocols. Zerocash was meant to improve on Zerocoin on these issues: a) Zerocoin still requires a basecoin to convert back before being allowed to spend. Zerocash has no more basecoin b) Zerocash's proofs are much more efficient and smaller than Zerocoin's c) Zerocoin uses fixed denominations to mint (1, 25, 50, 100) while Zerocash is not subject to such limitations d) Greater privacy with Zerocash since sender/receiver/amount are all obscured. However Zerocoin's advantage over Zerocash are as follows: a) While still retaining the basecoin and a lot of the Bitcoin core code, it is a lot easier to integrate to existing Bitcoin merchants/etc. b) Although Zerocoin's proofs are larger and occupies more storage space, the computational requirements to generate a private transaction are many times faster. Zcash requires large amounts of RAM and minutes of computational time. Zerocoin requires seconds to use and is not memory intensive. Basically Zerocoin uses more storage space but is computationally much less intensive. c) Parameter generation for both Zcoin and Zcash requires a trusted setup but Zcoin's parameters are arguably less controversial. ( https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/wiki/Parameters-in-set-up-phase-for-Zerocoin-in-ZCoin). A zero trust parameter setup is also within our roadmap. d) Most importantly is that in Zcoin, total supply is still visible so if there's a flaw and someone is secretly creating coins for themselves, this can be much more easily detected. With Zcash, if a flaw is exploited, it may be almost impossible to detect as someone can mint coins for themselves without being detected. e) Zerocoin's tech is much more reviewed and better understood than Zcash's. Zcash's use of zero knowledge proofs uses ZK-Snarks is much more experimental and only a handful of people understand it. You may also read more at the blog post here http://blog.zcoin.tech/zcoin-and-zcash/ |
|
|
|
They have an official explanation on this: https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/wiki/FUDWhen Zerovert was launched in November 2014, it was primarily an experiment and we didn't have any investor backing. We still wanted to protect our work and thus our only choice at that time was to make Zerovert closed source so that it could not be copied. However we quickly realized that in the cryptocurrency world, closed source software made it almost impossible for our project to be vetted and hence taken seriously so we were in a quandary.
Zerovert was originally intended to be part of Vertcoin's ecosystem however Vertcoin's community were not keen on it. Zerovert's also suffered from very poor performance and had huge scalability issues and therefore the project went silent while we figured out how to solve many of the challenges we faced with Zerovert.
We subsequently managed to fix many scalability issues and these changes have been incorporated into Zcoin. Starting afresh with Zcoin allowed strong investor backing from the likes of Roger Ver and allowed us to dedicate ourselves fully to this project rather than a mere experiment. With investor backing we also could finally make our code open source while still protecting our efforts. These considerations were what prompted us to wipe the slate clean with Zcoin instead of continuing with Zerovert which was never intended to be a serious project. |
|
|
|
Zerocoin.org is not run by Zcoin. Zerocoin.org is owned by Ian Miers (imiers) who is one of the founders of Zcash and also worked on the Zerocoin whitepaper. You can see this clearly in the footer of the website and his link to Zerocash. Zcoin is built using the Zerocoin whitepaper but there's no 'counterfeiting'. There is no claim that Zcoin devs came up with Zerocoin, they claim correctly that they are the first to implement it. There are two papers here, Zerocoin and Zerocash which expands on Zerocoin. |
|
|
|
@trapsy many ways you can interpret it. But there's a lot of FUD out there about Zcoin being a fork of Zcash even from people who should know better. I think this has been dealt with in the OP and many times in this thread too. There's also a lot of AWS miners who are using cheap AWS credits to mine these and it's still profitable to sell for them thus creating negative price pressure in the short term though there are indications that many of their AWS instances are being terminated (yet to be confirmed). You have to also realize that Zcash also massively dumped from the beginning  . I think we have yet to determine the price correlation of Zcash vs Zcoin but i think the simple fact is that there's still not enough exposure of what Zcoin represents and how it offers benefits over Zcash. Zcash is indeed the hot item right now with huge volatility and with BTC's price rise, it's not beyond the realm of imagination that XZC's price will suffer. |
|
|
|
Yeah it works with Suprnova |
|
|
|
https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/wiki/RoadmapNote that English isn't Poramin's first language and the roadmap is still a work in progress (only a few minutes old) This is getting me excited:
Implement MTP: Merkle-tree based Proof-of-WorkPaper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.03588v1.pdfWe believe MTP is the way to prevent botnets from mining while allowing normal legitimate CPUs to perform proof of work. On the verification end, it will take less time to process compared with finding proof. It is better than Equihash in term of speed following the below table, excerpt from https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity16/sec16_paper_biryukov.pdfhttps://i.imgur.com/wIOdIF1.pngUpdate Code Base to Bitcoin Core Latest Version 1 - 2 months Implementing TOR and i2p on wallet clients 1 - 2 months Further optimization of Zerocoin performance 2 - 4 months Currently, our implementation doesn't do parallel verification on spending Zerocoin transaction. Once implemented, Zerocoin spend transactionss can be sped fast and there can be more than one spending tx per block. Implementing trustless setup in Zerocoin Protocol 6 - 12 months Based on the academic paper, it may be possible to implement the Zerocoin protocol without a trusted setup phase. We will do further research into this, and will implement it, if it is possible.
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
2 questions please about ZCoin mining :
1) Is there others optimized miners than the CPUMiner from OCMiner (SuprNova) ? Windows ? Ubuntu ?
2) Is there some project(s) of GPUs Miners ? Windows ? Ubuntu ? AMD ? NVidia ?
Thank you :-)
You can try this one which has slight improvements to it: https://github.com/Optiminer/cpuminer-xzcNo GPUminers. I've also spoke to the core devs on this and they confirm that they're working on MTP algorithm. |
|
|
|
so with all those zcash clone recently, someone can enlighten me? zcoin, for example they said it's use a better technology than zcash, is this true or just a scam coin that want to ride the hype before the official zcash launch?
It's hard to tell which tech is better. Zcoin uses earlier more proven Zerocoin tech. Zcash uses cutting edge tech but has drawbacks as well. Zcoin is called Zcoin cause of the use of Zerocoin paper. Zcash is called Zcash cause of the use of Zerocash paper. I wouldn't call it a scam coin just cause of the name. Further reading: http://blog.zcoin.tech/zcoin-and-zcash/I also posted on this here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1663416.msg16708960#msg16708960 |
|
|
|
The alternative would be a 'premine'. I think this at least allows the devs to have some skin in the game and you know where their funding is coming from. I wrote this somewhere: Zcoin uses Zerocoin technology from the Zerocoin paper. http://spar.isi.jhu.edu/~mgreen/ZerocoinOakland.pdfThis is a very well peer reviewed paper. Zcash uses Zerocash. http://zerocash-project.org/media/pdf/zerocash-extended-20140518.pdfAlthough Zerocash is a development from Zerocoin meant to address certain perceived shortcomings of Zerocoin, they are not simple forks of each other and rely on different protocols. Zerocash was meant to improve on Zerocoin on these issues: a) Zerocoin still requires a basecoin to convert back before being allowed to spend. Zerocash has no more basecoin b) Zerocash's proofs are much more efficient and smaller than Zerocoin's c) Zerocoin uses fixed denominations to mint (1, 25, 50, 100) while Zerocash is not subject to such limitations d) Greater privacy with Zerocash since sender/receiver/amount are all obscured. However Zerocoin's advantage over Zerocash are as follows: a) While still retaining the basecoin and a lot of the Bitcoin core code, it is a lot easier to integrate to existing Bitcoin merchants/etc. b) Although Zerocoin's proofs are larger and occupies more storage space, the computational requirements to generate a private transaction are many times faster. Zcash requires large amounts of RAM and minutes of computational time. Zerocoin requires seconds to use and is not memory intensive. Basically Zerocoin uses more storage space but is computationally much less intensive. c) Parameter generation for both Zcoin and Zcash requires a trusted setup but Zcoin's parameters are arguably less controversial. ( https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/wiki/Parameters-in-set-up-phase-for-Zerocoin-in-ZCoin) d) Most importantly is that in Zcoin, total supply is still visible so if there's a flaw and someone is secretly creating coins for themselves, this can be much more easily detected. With Zcash, because everything is hidden, if a flaw is exploited, it may be almost impossible to detect! e) Zerocoin's tech is more peer reviewed and better understood than Zcash's. Zcash's use of zero knowledge proofs uses ZK-Snarks which very few people understand. Even Zooko himself admits he doesn't understand it ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6RLjcGVUnw&feature=youtu.be&t=17m30s). Note that Zerocoin's paper was only like 15 pages. Zcash's paper is more than 50 pages so Zcash's is considerably more complex which means more things that can go wrong. This is why Zcash had to spend so much money on multiple security companies auditing on its critical components and bugs (including some serious ones have been found). A security audit is also not fool proof as the DAO exposed and which is why Zcash also uses multiple companies to audit. Zcash is pretty neat technology and I think is a very amazing innovation but I do think that Zerocoin has a role to play. Its anonymity is still amazingly good with a much larger traceability set than previous anonymity implementations (basically all the previous Zcoins minted), it can be much more readily used today with existing vendors/merchants and can be used in a wide variety of devices today. |
|
|
|
Is it zcoin.tech or dot org? little bit confused here.
On github says org but here only see tech.
zcoin.tech is the correct one zerocoin.org is the original academic paper. Zcoin is the coin that implements Zerocoin |
|
|
|
|
Also note that the 20% Founder's Reward is only for the first 4 years.
|
|
|
|
Looks like a lot of people mistakenly think that Zcoin is a "Zcash" fork which can't be further from the truth. I posted this elsewhere but thought it would be good to have it here as well: Zcoin is NOT a fork of Zcash in anyway. First of all Zerocoin is the tech, Zcoin is the coin, similarly to how Zerocash is the tech and, Zcash the coin. Zcoin uses Zerocoin technology from the Zerocoin paper. http://spar.isi.jhu.edu/~mgreen/ZerocoinOakland.pdfThis is a very well peer reviewed paper. Zcash uses Zerocash. http://zerocash-project.org/media/pdf/zerocash-extended-20140518.pdfAlthough Zerocash is a development from Zerocoin meant to address certain perceived shortcomings of Zerocoin, they are not simple forks of each other and rely on different protocols. Zerocash was meant to improve on Zerocoin on these issues: a) Zerocoin still requires a basecoin to convert back before being allowed to spend. Zerocash has no more basecoin b) Zerocash's proofs are much more efficient and smaller than Zerocoin's c) Zerocoin uses fixed denominations to mint (1, 25, 50, 100) while Zerocash is not subject to such limitations d) Greater anonymity with Zerocash since sender/receiver/amount are all obscured. However Zerocoin's advantage over Zerocash are as follows: a) While still retaining the basecoin and a lot of the Bitcoin core code, it is a lot easier to integrate to existing Bitcoin merchants/etc. b) Although Zerocoin's proofs are larger and occupies more storage space, the computational requirements to generate a private transaction are many times faster. Zcash requires large amounts of RAM and minutes of computational time. Zerocoin requires seconds to use and is not memory intensive. Basically Zerocoin uses more storage space but is computationally much less intensive. c) Parameter generation for both Zcoin and Zcash requires a trusted setup but Zcoin's parameters are arguably less controversial. ( https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/wiki/Parameters-in-set-up-phase-for-Zerocoin-in-ZCoin) d) Most importantly is that in Zcoin, total supply is still visible so if there's a flaw and someone is secretly creating coins for themselves, this can be much more easily detected. With Zcash, because everything is hidden, if a flaw is exploited, it may be almost impossible to detect! e) Zerocoin's tech is more peer reviewed and better understood than Zcash's. Zcash's use of zero knowledge proofs uses ZK-Snarks which very few people understand. Even Zooko himself admits he doesn't understand it ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6RLjcGVUnw&feature=youtu.be&t=17m30s). Note that Zerocoin's paper was only like 15 pages. Zcash's paper is more than 50 pages so Zcash's is considerably more complex which means more things that can go wrong. This is why Zcash had to spend so much money on multiple security companies auditing on its critical components and bugs (including some serious ones have been found). A security audit is also not fool proof as the DAO exposed and which is why Zcash also uses multiple companies to audit. Zcash is pretty neat technology and I think is a very amazing innovation but I do think that Zerocoin has a role to play. Its anonymity is still amazingly good with a much larger traceability set than previous anonymity implementations (basically all the previous Zcoins minted), it can be much more readily used today with existing vendors/merchants and can be used in a wide variety of devices today. Calling Zcoin a 'Zcash fork' is ignorant and shows a lack of understanding behind the large amount of work put into both these projects. |
|
|
|
Zcoin is NOT a fork of Zcash in anyway. First of all Zerocoin is the tech, Zcoin is the coin, similarly to how Zerocash is the tech and, Zcash the coin. Zcoin uses Zerocoin technology from the Zerocoin paper. http://spar.isi.jhu.edu/~mgreen/ZerocoinOakland.pdfThis is a very well peer reviewed paper. Zcash uses Zerocash. http://zerocash-project.org/media/pdf/zerocash-extended-20140518.pdfAlthough Zerocash is a development from Zerocoin meant to address certain perceived shortcomings of Zerocoin, they are not simple forks of each other and rely on different protocols. Zerocash was meant to improve on Zerocoin on these issues: a) Zerocoin still requires a basecoin to convert back before being allowed to spend. Zerocash has no more basecoin b) Zerocash's proofs are much more efficient and smaller than Zerocoin's c) Zerocoin uses fixed denominations to mint (1, 25, 50, 100) while Zerocash is not subject to such limitations d) Greater anonymity with Zerocash since sender/receiver/amount are all obscured. However Zerocoin's advantage over Zerocash are as follows: a) While still retaining the basecoin and a lot of the Bitcoin core code, it is a lot easier to integrate to existing Bitcoin merchants/etc. b) Although Zerocoin's proofs are larger and occupies more storage space, the computational requirements to generate a private transaction are many times faster. Zcash requires large amounts of RAM and minutes of computational time. Zerocoin requires seconds to use and is not memory intensive. Basically Zerocoin uses more storage space but is computationally much less intensive. c) Parameter generation for both Zcoin and Zcash requires a trusted setup but Zcoin's parameters are arguably less controversial. ( https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/wiki/Parameters-in-set-up-phase-for-Zerocoin-in-ZCoin) d) Most importantly is that in Zcoin, total supply is still visible so if there's a flaw and someone is secretly creating coins for themselves, this can be much more easily detected. With Zcash, because everything is hidden, if a flaw is exploited, it may be almost impossible to detect! e) Zerocoin's tech is more peer reviewed and better understood than Zcash's. Zcash's use of zero knowledge proofs uses ZK-Snarks which very few people understand. Even Zooko himself admits he doesn't understand it ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6RLjcGVUnw&feature=youtu.be&t=17m30s). Note that Zerocoin's paper was only like 15 pages. Zcash's paper is more than 50 pages so Zcash's is considerably more complex which means more things that can go wrong. This is why Zcash had to spend so much money on multiple security companies auditing on its critical components and bugs (including some serious ones have been found). A security audit is also not fool proof as the DAO exposed and which is why Zcash also uses multiple companies to audit. Zcash is pretty neat technology and I think is a very amazing innovation but I do think that Zerocoin has a role to play. Its anonymity is still amazingly good with a much larger traceability set than previous anonymity implementations (basically all the previous Zcoins minted), it can be much more readily used today with existing vendors/merchants and can be used in a wide variety of devices today. Calling Zcoin a 'Zcash fork' is ignorant and shows a lack of understanding behind the large amount of work put into both these projects. |
|
|
|
|
One of the reasons is that the devs are working on MTP algo change to replace it so little incentive to spend work and time on an algo that is about to change.
|
|
|
|
|
Being involved with Dash, when the x11 ASICS came, only a handful of manufacturers and they are selling it at exorbitant prices that would probably never break even. A problem that still exists today. I suspect the vast majority of these miners are being retained by the manufacturers themselves.
We can't liken it to Bitcoin when it was the only cryptocurrency around but even then it's still only a handful of manufacturers. Bitmain is basically the only one where outsiders can get their hands on the miner easily.
They always talk about 'hash rate' as protection but I would argue that if it requires specialized hardware that only can be obtained from a few sources, that hash rate protection is a bit meaningless. It just makes it easier for the ASICS to dominate.
|
|
|
|
|
