The founder wallet address that was dumped and was removed was Gary's.
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xzc/address.dws?aLrg41sXbXZc5MyEj7dts8upZKSAtJmRDR.htmThe other wallets in the Founder's Reward are more or less intact and that can be verified on your own. What is important is that the initial investors and dev are not dumping their entire stashes and are vested in the long term growth of the coin. We have already disclosed that these wallets belong to initial private investors and Poramin and a bounty fund.
The other wallet address that had quite a lot of deductions is the bounty fund which were used to pay various bounties which include (but not an exhaustive list) dev help (various people), community manager pay (Reuben), Glitch (website and logo design), ocminer (for pool code), blockchain explorer (chainz), coinpayments listing, our introductory video work and voice actress, various people for contributions on social media and maintaining other language communities, initial Zcoin giveaways for promotion and translation work.
Poramin's founder's wallet address which I am at liberty to disclose is: a1kCCGddf5pMXSipLVD9hBG2MGGVNaJ15U
With a bit of deduction, you can probably tell whose wallet is whose but we won't be making any official announcements on this at this time as we have not received clearance from the investors. What's important is that they are largely intact.
You can view the relevant history of Github here:
https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/commit/6ad9bdf2ea1a01df2ce757eb842fb278f0f6582d?diff=splitThe investors are Roger Ver, Tim Lee and one other investor who wishes to remain anonymous. Roger Ver and the anonymous investor were the initial investors together with some money from Startup Chile. Tim Lee is the new investor who is bringing in new investment (since the initial investment was largely taken by Gary) and also bringing the support of his team which we will see over the coming months.
As to why Founder's wallets are not 'anonymous' and how to prevent Founders from secretly 'minting' their own Zerocoins there's a lot of misunderstanding here and hope this clears it up. It is however ironic that when we do disclose further info on the founder's wallets we are then criticized for not being 'anonymous'.
How Zcoin and its Zerocoin implementation works for anonymity and how it affects FoundersZcoin is anonymous by choice. This is a similar setup as Zcash and Dash. You can either choose to send coins like normal like Bitcoin or to anonymize your coins.
The anonymity in Zcoin works by burning up existing coins (minting Zerocoins) and then generating new coins (Zerocoin spend) with no transaction history. The zero knowledge proof ensures that you need not show people which coin you burnt but can prove that you burnt it that allows you to redeem. So you will get new coins on a new address with no transaction history.
Founder's wallets are built into the block reward and are directly given to them from the block reward. These are done in normal Coinbase transactions.
Founders can of course choose to mint their block rewards which will anonymize them and make it unclear which coins they still keep and which coins they have spent. But they have for the most part not done this (with the exception of Gary). If their founder's wallet is untouched, it is untouched. If it has deducted an amount, they have either been transferred out or minted Zerocoins. Once they have minted Zerocoins, they could be still kept by them or they could have spent it elsewhere but you can not tell which. This is where the anonymity comes in but I suspect if they do this, more FUD will come about.
Can Founders secretly mint Zerocoins?No, they (and not including the dev) do not have access to the initial parameters and are subject to the same rules as everyone else.
Zcoin uses Zerocoin. Zerocoin's 'trusted setup' is purely two distinct large prime numbers which is normally referred to as p and q. Multiply them together and you get the parameter n which is used for the RSA accumulator setup. p and q needs to be destroyed. This is why we use parameters that were generated for a cryptographic challenge created in March 1991 which we believe is unlikely to be compromised. For further reading on how these parameters came about and the cryptographic challenge, you can view this
article.
Zcash's setup on the other hand is much more complex and is >1 GB in length and their trusted setup and how they did it is a lot more complicated and there have been criticisms of it.
Of course having a trusted setup in general is not ideal and we are exploring ways to do away with this trusted setup entirely (as stated in our roadmap) but we believe our trusted setup is unlikely to have been compromised, and even if it was compromised, would be easily detected (see below). We note that there are some people who claim that they have done trustless setups for Zerocoin via RSA UFOs but this is impractical as it has huge performance hits. Another coin has claimed to find a way to modify this to make it usable but we believe this method is flawed as detailed here (
https://twitter.com/secparam/status/449619152685522944) (Ian Miers is one of the original authors of Zerocoin and Zerocash).
Remember, neither the dev nor the founders have the trusted parameters as these were generated by a third party as elaborated in the article above so they aren't able to mint Zerocoins themselves. Even if they did, it will be detected as explained below.
How do we detect a breach in Zcoin's initial parameters or a vulnerability?In the event of Zcoin's initial parameters being compromised or some other vulnerability is discovered, Zerocoins can be minted. However this is easily detected as total supply is still auditable.
Total supply of coins that should exist = (block number x block reward)
OP_ZEROCOINMINT function shows all mints + 0.1 mint fee
OP_ZEROCOINSPEND shows all spends of Zerocoin
So you know exactly how many Zerocoins have entered the Zerocoin pool and how many Zerocoins have exited the Zerocoin pool.
total supply >= all circular money - (#zerocoin_mint_tx + 0.1 for each tx) + #zerocoin_spend_tx
Remember an example of a bug that can cause things going haywire has been observed in Bitcoin (
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident) but it was detected and fixed because the total supply was auditable.
This is not possible with Zcash as transaction amounts are obscured making it impossible to determine so if a flaw is found, this is a much bigger risk. This is the trade off for their added anonymity and we feel it's a risky one although they have attempted to mitigate this by multiple costly security audits.
Why the Fork away from Gary?Without getting into the dramatic details, this mainly arose from a few key factors:
a) lack of transparency to Poramin on how the initial investor funds were utilised and how much was left to fund Poramin's dev (with Poramin doing all the coding work). The vast majority of the initial investors' funds (>90%) remain with Gary so if anyone thinks he was forced out unfairly should consider this.
b) lack of involvement from Gary on his duties with very little disclosure to the team as to how he was working to promote Zcoin despite numerous pushes to help out.
c) the dumping of Gary's wallet and the lack of spending on Zcoin marketing/dev and building the team. This lead to many good people who wanted to work or contribute help to the coin to lose interest when they were not remunerated fairly for their efforts.
d) questionable behavior in a number of specific instances that did not tally with Gary's assertions. I will refrain from going into details. You can dig them by yourself from Slack and BCT.
Happy New Year everyone and stay safe!!!! 
Show Posts
