I like both Monero and zCash. As technologies they both have different advantages and they are both pushing the state of the art in privacy cryptocurrencies. As a researcher it makes me optimistic that we are pursuing multiple paths to the goal of "digital cash".
>Using zCash requires 8gb+ of RAM, and takes over a minute on a Xeon processor.
Cryptography in this area is rapidly advancing, we have seen dramatic speed ups in zkSNARKS (cryptography behind zCash's anonymity) over the last few years and the launch of zCash will probably accelerate this trend.
> it's limited to the people moving from traceable addresses to z-addresses who haven't identifiably moved ~the same amount out.
This number, X, is growing and will continue to grow.
>ZCash is useless at best, dangerous privacy theatre at worst.
zCash is an excellent and exciting experiment. It is not a very mature platform (it has only been live for a month), but that doesn't mean it will never been mature.
Sorry but I can't agree with you here. When Monero still allowed mixin 0 transactions almost nobody used the privacy-enhancing transaction type. The same goes for Dash and it's DarkSend, or Shadow's ring-signature side-currency - all virtually unused.
Thus X grows at a rate that is useless for its intended purpose: getting lost in the dust of millions of others.
But to make matters worse, ZCash is grossly irresponsible by not making private transactions mandatory, as people will use t-address transactions and think they're safe. Pools pay out to t-addresses, exchanges only accept t-address deposits, and lightweight clients will all end up being t-address only as it's the quick win.
Claiming that it's "just an experiment" is not acceptable when people's money is on the line, at best, and where their lives might hang in the balance, at worst. The disgusting and dangerous approach taken by the for-profit US company behind ZCash, that of fast-tracking the launch of massively immature technology due to investor pressure, is something that should lead to grave consequences for them because of the nature of this technology.
I greatly respect the work of Ben-Sasson, Green, Garman, Miers, et. al., but even they have been complicit in the rush hack-job that is ZCash. We would do well to consider what advantage a nation state attacker would have in encouraging adoption of this immature and likely broken system, over alternatives that are FOSS and have prolific contributor communities.
>Claiming that it's "just an experiment" is not acceptable when people's money is on the line, at best, and where their lives might hang in the balance, at worst.
Claiming it is just an experiment means that people should NOT use it when serious money or human lives are on the line. I think we can both agree that people should wait for a technology to mature before betting their life on it.
Also if Gmail lost all your email it would be bad, but you'd probably be ok. If ZCash causes you to lose a significant portion of your life saving, on the other hand...
That was my point, gmail was in beta for five years, but it wasn't in beta forever. Technology takes a long time to mature and it is hard to get to that level of maturity without having people use it for real things.
Do not put a significant potion of your life savings in ZCash.
>Using zCash requires 8gb+ of RAM, and takes over a minute on a Xeon processor.
Cryptography in this area is rapidly advancing, we have seen dramatic speed ups in zkSNARKS (cryptography behind zCash's anonymity) over the last few years and the launch of zCash will probably accelerate this trend.
> it's limited to the people moving from traceable addresses to z-addresses who haven't identifiably moved ~the same amount out.
This number, X, is growing and will continue to grow.
>ZCash is useless at best, dangerous privacy theatre at worst.
zCash is an excellent and exciting experiment. It is not a very mature platform (it has only been live for a month), but that doesn't mean it will never been mature.