5 ms·

Yeah, but proof that (Beyond the 10% pre-mine) more ZEC are not being secretly generated for the creators relies upon trust in a cabal of six individuals based

by elif 10y ago

Yeah, but proof that (Beyond the 10% pre-mine) more ZEC are not being secretly generated for the creators relies upon trust in a cabal of six individuals based upon a "public" exhibition of genesis involving theatrical destruction of computers (whose video was supposed to be published but I can't find?) Even if they are 100% legitimate actors, the lack of absolute proof undermines the provenance. From my perspective, Zcash is technically a Fiat currency without the clout of a state backer. I'm sticking to bitcoin and ethereum :)

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
What would you have done differently to solve the same problem they did?
- elif 10y ago
  If I could come up with something better, they would have done that. Absence of a better solution does not imply any fitness of the proposed solution. Until such time that someone comes up with a better idea, I am sticking to public blockchains.
  - CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
    > If I could come up with something better, they would have done that. Don't give up so easily! If you're going to make a stance borne out of principle, why not follow through to outperform the suboptimal solution that you dislike so much? Innovate. Put some skin in the game. That's what I would do, anyway. As it stands: If any of the folks involved in the trusted setup was honest, then it's secure. It takes a 100% corruption to make it insecure. I think that's acceptable until a better solution is proposed.
    - pablovidal85 10y ago
      Why such a small group of people though?
      - CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
        I don't have access to the answer to that question. I wasn't involved at all.
      - eridius 10y ago
        ewillbefull explains in another comment that the protocol is really expensive per participant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12979677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12979677
        plasticmachine 10y ago
        Then rushing the launch in the absence of a superior MPC protocol is just a bad idea. Except that they had to rush the launch because they're a for-profit, centralised company, with investors that are demanding return on their investment. Thus they went with a shoddy, half-baked attempt at a trusted setup, with a whole lot of hand-waving to make it seem like it was done securely.
  - blueprint 10y ago
    Have you heard of Monero?
exstudent2 10y ago
One of the six is Peter Todd. Bitcoin expert and Zcash skeptic. He posted about his participation here: https://petertodd.org/2016/cypherpunk-desert-bus-zcash-trusted-setup-ceremony https://petertodd.org/2016/cypherpunk-desert-bus-zcash-trust...
Ar-Curunir 10y ago
The trusted setup only requires one person to not collude. Given how skeptical Peter Todd has been about this entire business, I'd be t that at the very minimum he was honest in his role.
- phamilton 10y ago
  As someone entirely unfamiliar, why only six? If the weakness is all of them colluding, then wouldn't adding anybody in the world (let's say, me) as a seventh make it strictly better?
  - ewillbefull 10y ago
    > why only six The protocol is expensive; it took 2 days with 6 people. After a certain point, it's not practical to add more participants without increasing risk. It requires gigabytes worth of communication per participant and many millions of curve operations.
petertodd 10y ago
> Beyond the 10% pre-mine It's 20% for the next few years, not 10%
- CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
  2.1 million total for the Founder's Reward out of 21 million total that will ever be minted = 10%
  - petertodd 10y ago
    That's why I said "for the next few years"
    - CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
      I know, but you're both talking about different things. It may be 20% for the next few years, but it's also 10% overall. You're both right, why even try to nitpick over these details or correct anyone?
      - petertodd 10y ago
        Since this is an investment we're talking about, I think we should strongly lean towards the interpretation of the facts that more conservative rather than less; 20% vs. 10% is a big difference to Zcash as an investment for the first few years, which could easily be longer than the lifespan of the currency.
        CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
        That's a fair point, and I don't really disagree with your priority here now that it's spelled out. I just think that people would be better served with both facts simultaneously rather than demanding one at a time.
      - plasticmachine 10y ago
        You're some random on HN. Peter Todd is a core developer who works on software that runs a billion Dollar economy (Bitcoin), and is also one of the 6 people involved in the ZCash trusted setup. I think you need to stop talking and start listening, because the economics at play and the framing of the founder's reward is critical. Downplaying the 20%, when it is a massive sum that could be used to significantly bolster double-spend attacks and lead to all sorts of perverse incentives, is just irresponsible.
petertodd 10y ago
> whose video was supposed to be published but I can't find? Keep in mind that while videos of the destruction are entertaining - and and possibly useful for education and peer review - they prove nothing. You shouldn't trust Zcash significantly less because they haven't been released yet - if that'd make you trust Zcash more, you're probably not thinking carefully about how fundamentally based on trust the whole process was. I'm one of those six individuals, and the simple fact is it would have been trivial for me collude with the other five to backdoor the process undetectably; if we did that you would never know. End of story. (and sorry, but the video footage of the ceremony that some stations apparently kept doesn't change that either) Also remember that everyone ran the exact same software - a bootage DVD image - and that software was produced by one guy the day prior to the ceremony. I hear Andrew Miller successfully reproduced the build of that DVD image, but there's a lot more independent auditing work that needs to be done on that software. Until that work is done by multiple independent people, the entire multi-party aspect of the ceremony is just a bunch of crypto hocus pocus that means nothing.
valarauca1 10y ago
>I'm sticking to bitcoin and ethereum You don't trust ZCash but you trust Ethereum? The coin that's had it's network hard forked and invalidated... what 4 times now?
- aminorex 10y ago
  Bounded rationality.
- elif 10y ago
  Actually the fork is when I diversified from only bitcoin. It gives me more confidence than the perpetual ideological wanking behind the btc size bump. I don't usually take a fundamentalist perspective, especially when it requires siding with thieves who stole enough to become an existential threat to the currency.

by elif 10y ago

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago

What would you have done differently to solve the same problem they did?

elif 10y ago
If I could come up with something better, they would have done that. Absence of a better solution does not imply any fitness of the proposed solution. Until such time that someone comes up with a better idea, I am sticking to public blockchains.
- CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
  > If I could come up with something better, they would have done that. Don't give up so easily! If you're going to make a stance borne out of principle, why not follow through to outperform the suboptimal solution that you dislike so much? Innovate. Put some skin in the game. That's what I would do, anyway. As it stands: If any of the folks involved in the trusted setup was honest, then it's secure. It takes a 100% corruption to make it insecure. I think that's acceptable until a better solution is proposed.
  - pablovidal85 10y ago
    Why such a small group of people though?
    - CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
      I don't have access to the answer to that question. I wasn't involved at all.
    - eridius 10y ago
      ewillbefull explains in another comment that the protocol is really expensive per participant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12979677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12979677
      - plasticmachine 10y ago
        Then rushing the launch in the absence of a superior MPC protocol is just a bad idea. Except that they had to rush the launch because they're a for-profit, centralised company, with investors that are demanding return on their investment. Thus they went with a shoddy, half-baked attempt at a trusted setup, with a whole lot of hand-waving to make it seem like it was done securely.
- blueprint 10y ago
  Have you heard of Monero?

exstudent2 10y ago

One of the six is Peter Todd. Bitcoin expert and Zcash skeptic. He posted about his participation here: https://petertodd.org/2016/cypherpunk-desert-bus-zcash-trusted-setup-ceremony https://petertodd.org/2016/cypherpunk-desert-bus-zcash-trust...

Ar-Curunir 10y ago

The trusted setup only requires one person to not collude. Given how skeptical Peter Todd has been about this entire business, I'd be t that at the very minimum he was honest in his role.

phamilton 10y ago
As someone entirely unfamiliar, why only six? If the weakness is all of them colluding, then wouldn't adding anybody in the world (let's say, me) as a seventh make it strictly better?
- ewillbefull 10y ago
  > why only six The protocol is expensive; it took 2 days with 6 people. After a certain point, it's not practical to add more participants without increasing risk. It requires gigabytes worth of communication per participant and many millions of curve operations.

petertodd 10y ago

> Beyond the 10% pre-mine It's 20% for the next few years, not 10%

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
2.1 million total for the Founder's Reward out of 21 million total that will ever be minted = 10%
- petertodd 10y ago
  That's why I said "for the next few years"
  - CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
    I know, but you're both talking about different things. It may be 20% for the next few years, but it's also 10% overall. You're both right, why even try to nitpick over these details or correct anyone?
    - petertodd 10y ago
      Since this is an investment we're talking about, I think we should strongly lean towards the interpretation of the facts that more conservative rather than less; 20% vs. 10% is a big difference to Zcash as an investment for the first few years, which could easily be longer than the lifespan of the currency.
      - CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
        That's a fair point, and I don't really disagree with your priority here now that it's spelled out. I just think that people would be better served with both facts simultaneously rather than demanding one at a time.
    - plasticmachine 10y ago
      You're some random on HN. Peter Todd is a core developer who works on software that runs a billion Dollar economy (Bitcoin), and is also one of the 6 people involved in the ZCash trusted setup. I think you need to stop talking and start listening, because the economics at play and the framing of the founder's reward is critical. Downplaying the 20%, when it is a massive sum that could be used to significantly bolster double-spend attacks and lead to all sorts of perverse incentives, is just irresponsible.

petertodd 10y ago

> whose video was supposed to be published but I can't find? Keep in mind that while videos of the destruction are entertaining - and and possibly useful for education and peer review - they prove nothing. You shouldn't trust Zcash significantly less because they haven't been released yet - if that'd make you trust Zcash more, you're probably not thinking carefully about how fundamentally based on trust the whole process was. I'm one of those six individuals, and the simple fact is it would have been trivial for me collude with the other five to backdoor the process undetectably; if we did that you would never know. End of story. (and sorry, but the video footage of the ceremony that some stations apparently kept doesn't change that either) Also remember that everyone ran the exact same software - a bootage DVD image - and that software was produced by one guy the day prior to the ceremony. I hear Andrew Miller successfully reproduced the build of that DVD image, but there's a lot more independent auditing work that needs to be done on that software. Until that work is done by multiple independent people, the entire multi-party aspect of the ceremony is just a bunch of crypto hocus pocus that means nothing.

valarauca1 10y ago

>I'm sticking to bitcoin and ethereum You don't trust ZCash but you trust Ethereum? The coin that's had it's network hard forked and invalidated... what 4 times now?

aminorex 10y ago
Bounded rationality.
elif 10y ago
Actually the fork is when I diversified from only bitcoin. It gives me more confidence than the perpetual ideological wanking behind the btc size bump. I don't usually take a fundamentalist perspective, especially when it requires siding with thieves who stole enough to become an existential threat to the currency.