3 ms·
Matt Green here. This statement has been trotted out a lot by people who I don’t honestly feel are offering it up with any kind of good faith. As you suggested
by matthewdgreen 9y ago
Matt Green here. This statement has been trotted out a lot by people who I don’t honestly feel are offering it up with any kind of good faith.
As you suggested, all I meant is that once you have a fully anonymous currency it’s always possible to deliberately weaken that privacy if you want to. I think that sort of decision is up to the currency adopters. But to be clear, that kind of feature is absolutely not included in ZCash. Anyone who implies so is selling FUD. Since the ZCash code and design is fully open source this is easily verifiable, and plenty of people have looked.
For the record: as a researcher I deal with a lot of people who’ve told me that privacy technology is fundamentally dangerous. One standard response I give them is that this is crazy: a fully private currency is the right starting point. If you want to make a fork of ZCash that has less privacy, you can do that and I won’t stop you. But that isn’t ZCash.
- the_stc 9y agoI don't mean it in bad faith. I am one of the people you and Zooko talk about preventing from using zCash. That's very offputting and since I cannot audit zCash it makes me nervous. People tell me zcash is very advanced and thus hard to understand and audit for other people too: newer crypto. I am not implying any backdoor, just that it seems you are sympathetic to such works. I don't follow Zooko's explanation that he wasn't talking about zcash but about some other unmentioned layer. If it's a generic statement about all currencies, why bring it up and mention zcash in the same breath?