I'll just copy my reddit comment here:
I've made this list earlier:
List of possible pitfalls wrt ZeroCash/ZeroCoin:
[1] If ZeroCash/ZeroCoin is launched on behalf of a company, which seems the case here, the company can be given a gag order (e.g. to add a line of malicious code).
Not if the block chain is decentralized, but see below...
[2] If I recall correctly, the creator of the genesis block holds some kind of masterkey. As a result, you have to trust this person. Even if this key was held by a group, you still have to trust that particular group. In addition, you have to trust the program they run to create the Genesis block (the masterkey could be in there).
The masterkey has to be produced in a way that no one knows it. The proposals had been to use a public ceremony and a computer examined by everyone attending, to be sure the masterkey is unknown to anyone.
Note if the masterkey is known, that person can create coins out-of-thin-air, but he can't unmask the anonymity. That is a crucial distinction.
This is why I proposed the idea of using Zerocash as a mixer that eventually times out, so that we can be sure the mixer hasn't created any new coins. Everyone going into the mixer takes the risk that they may not be able to come out of the mixer if the attacker has already created coins. Then we could have many of these mixers in a free market, and users would decide which mixers they trust. Again anonymity is never compromised and the run on the bank can only be a loss to participants, not to the entire ecosystem. I am pretty sure this solves the problem and this is why we can take their open source and beat them.
I am loaded with ideas and designs to solve real problems in crypto. Hopefully some smart devs are going to realize they are better off working with me.
[3] It's too opaque in my opinion. If a bug existed that would create additional coins, there is no way you would see it.
RingCT has the same problem. I explained in I believe both the chess thread and my Zero Knowledge Transactions thread. This is another reason I abandoned it (in addition to the inability to get reliable anonymity since it doesn't hide meta-data the way Zerocash/Zcash does).
[4] The math and cryptography backing it isn't peer reviewed yet and in an infancy stage.
Sort of true, but zk-snarks have been out for some years already (which is what Zerocash is based on) and one flaw was found and fixed already.
These are very, very smart dudes. Wilcox created the very awesome Blake2 hash which I am using in my design (much superior for CPUs).
I don't think you should bet against them, because Zerocash has anonymity and nothing else does! The community will make sure it is peer reviewed. We must. You had better start figuring out how to transition and pronto.
[1] seems to be confirmed. They will be launching as a
for profit company, see:
For its first four years online, a portion of every mined Zcash coin will go directly to Wilcox’s Zcash company
This could also invoke some legal issues, since they are basically not a decentralid currency and bear in mind they are **US** based (
http://www.bizapedia.com/de/THE-ZEROCOIN-ELECTRIC-COIN-COMPANY-LLC.html). Just remember what happened with Ripple.
All miners will have to register as money transmitters under FinCEN regulations, same as the issue for Dash masternodes. There has seriously bad implications in their investment strategy. But their code and developers are valuable. The investors can probably recover their money on the initial IPO. They should IPO the damn thing and do it legally and not mess with this "master of the universe" idea above.
I am contemplating contacting them, but I need to think through their economic options. It may be impossible to get them to do the right thing.
But they could definitely benefit from my endorsement in an IPO. A legal IPO! As well, they could benefit from my block chain tech.
Basically, with Ring Confidential Transactions included in Monero it's basically pepsi vs coke (thanks to u/smooth_xmr for this analogy), where both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Sorry I strongly disagree. Meta-data correlation is fundamental and smooth should remember how Dash and I lost on the point that Cryptonote one-time rings are End-to-End principled and off chain mixing (CoinJoin, CoinShuffle, etc) are not. This meta-data point is also fundamental and this time smooth is positioning himself on the wrong side of the truth. Hopefully he will realize this asap, although his vested interests may prevent him from being objective (hopefully not).
P.S. They are currently only on
testnet, the "real-version" is at least
6 months away.
P.P.S. It seems like they transactions are also quit inefficient compared to Monero's. See this description on how to get from the basecoins (the transparent ones) to the zerocoins (anonymous ones):
This operation (called a pour) might take a minute or two depending on your hardware. It is producing a zero-knowledge proof. (This operation's performance will be improved in the coming months.)
We may indeed find irresolvable weaknesses, such as DDoS resistance is the one I am expecting given the slow speed of verification. But don't fall into the trap of being blinded and trying to rationalize your bagholding. The devil is in the details, and I would be very worried if I were you, that you are going to be wrong.
