Zcash Community Forum Forum

Very cool. Will check it out.

True privacy is rarely ever the path with the lowest friction and cost. I see some validity to those points, but I also have reservations about funding public-goods and community infrastructure For example, the Nym network subsidies will not last forever, and bandwidth will become a cost down the road, and most users and wallets will likely not opt in to the extra cost to improve their privacy (against a global-passive observer). Networking and privacy infrastructure benefits all individual users of zcash, but is hard for a commercial entity to fund due to the cost/benefit and the regulatory pressures. Moving these rewards to miners is unlikely to improve the security and quality of the network, and I suspect they could be more efficiently deployed. Where and how, now those are questions that I am interested in!

Hi ZCG team, Zebra maintainers, and Zcash community, Monthly update — 2026-07-23 (M3 delivery) → 2026-09-10. Apologies for the gap in this thread: the work continued through August, the write-up didn’t. Back to monthly from here. The harnesses now live in ZcashFoundation/zebra OSS-Fuzz’s review said the project looked good but needed maintainer buy-in, and that the harnesses should live upstream so maintenance ownership is clear. That is now done: Merged into ZcashFoundation/zebra on 2026-08-17 under zebra-fuzz/ ( #11221 ) — 15 cargo-fuzz targets, 30 files, +12,455 lines, 0 deletions, reviewed and approved by a Zebra maintainer. Seed corpora now live in ZcashFoundation/zebra-fuzz-corpora , a Foundation repository the Zebra team created and populated. The OSS-Fuzz PR points at the Foundation — main_repo is ZcashFoundation/zebra , primary_contact is security@zfnd.org , at their request. The only change to existing crates is an off-by-default fuzzing feature on zebra-network and zebra-consensus : 16 lines, 0 deletions, no new dependencies. A fuzzing suite in a contributor’s repository decays the moment the contributor stops paying attention; one in the upstream tree is the maintainers’ to keep. What the review changed — with thanks to @alchemydc The most valuable findings this window came from the review, not from me. An automated pass raised 17 items; @alchemydc ’s pass then assessed the harnesses for defects found per CPU-hour rather than correctness and produced seven must-fi

My bad. I previously noticed that the mobile SDK was part of the Q1 application ( Retroactive Grant Application — ZODL Q1 2026 Core Protocol Development ), but you’re correct that only librustzcash is part of this application and not the SDKs in the revised Q1/Q2 application.

I’m already playing [ seperate portfolio ] Grok summary This is an isolated Coinbase book that Grok can read and trade, with a scheduled job that applies written rules when I am offline. What it is not: a black-box hedge fund, a withdrawal bot, or “Grok has my whole Coinbase.” The main account stays separate. The agent only sees the book I funded for it. It cannot send assets off-exchange. What it is: a small sandbox. I put a limited amount of capital in that book, connected Grok’s Coinbase plugin, and wrote a mandate: hold a core position, keep dry powder, add only on defined pullbacks, cut losers, take partial profits. Size per add is capped. Number of side positions is capped. No leverage. How it runs In chat I can check the book, preview, and place a trade if I say so. A Grok Automation fires on a fixed cadence (hourly, not tick-by-tick). Each run reads balances and prices, checks the rules, and either does nothing or places one small spot order. Exits that cannot wait for the next hour sit as working orders on Coinbase itself. Those fill whether Grok is awake or not. Why this shape Blast radius is the sandbox, not the rest of the account. The model does not get a blank check. The prompt is the risk policy. Fees and a small book punish overtrading, so the default action is no trade. I can pause the job or revoke the Coinbase connection in one place. What outsiders should assume I am using an LLM as a rules clerk on a tiny, revocable slice of an exchange account — not as a

Ledger recommends using Zkool at this time. https://support.ledger.com/article/connecting-a-ledger-signer-to-zkool-wallet

God this reply by @Batuhan makes me reminiscent of the 2025 USAID closure by Trump and Musk. Only rich whales stood to profit, nobody who benefited positively got a say in it, and it was done to “remove grifters” while all it stood was to benefit… grifters. At the very least, a referendum should be held, and it should be tapered off slowly from the original peak, especially given only a tiny portion is actually redeemed: for the numbers: Current liabilities of the ZEC dev fund deep in the calender year: $ 2,851,000 Total value of the fund: 86,712 ZEC (~$108M) A utilisation rate of ~2.5%. If this fund was cashed out right now, at the annual liability rate of ~$6M, and assuming responsible investment at a conservative S&P500 inflation-adjusted real return of 4%, the fund could self-sustain for close to 30 years. If its liabilities are the same as now (~$3M), the fund will have a ~$1M surplus and will grow forever for centuries. By Year 100, the trust will turn to $53.7 billion (7% standard inflation-adjusted S&P index), with a face value of $1.03 trillion, generating $3 billion real dollars ($93 billion face value) annually to fund development operations, adjusted for inflation. That’s why I argued for tapering it or tying it to the ZEC valuation, but not killing it.

There’s a really important turning point here. What I find particularly interesting is how much the argument has changed since January. At that time, the Dev Fund was being described as a successful and justified mechanism. Today, after studying Hayek, Mises, and others, the argument is that the same system has become ineffective and should eventually be phased out. The proposal now is to set a schedule and gradually reduce the fund each month until it reaches zero. The idea is that this would encourage organizations to develop their own revenue models, donors to organize, and alternative funding mechanisms to emerge after supposedly being suppressed by the fund for the past 10 years. But there’s an interesting contradiction here: Many of these alternative funding mechanisms already exist, and some of the most important organizations in the Zcash ecosystem have already been funded through them. In fact, a significant part of the progress Zcash has made over the past few years was made possible by the resources provided through this very funding mechanism. I have a lot more to say about this. But I’m not a whale. I’m simply a community member who has been working on Zcash for years and building projects with my own resources. So I have just one request for the larger ZEC holders taking part in this debate: Please take some time to look at how Zcash got to where it is today. Especially look at what happened over the past three years, which projects were funded, how they were fu

Batuhan: You are now part of an organization that launched a Zcash mining operation with around 4.2 GSol/s, representing roughly 18% of the network’s hashpower at launch . Cypherpunk also holds more than 323,000 ZEC and has publicly stated its intention to continue accumulating ZEC. Hmm. 4.2 GSols/s. Assuming 28 GSols/s as a ballpark for the total hashrate and the laws of probability, ~15% of all blocks are mined by Winklevoss Capital-funded Cypherpunk. That means out of the 1.5625 ZEC per block, 1.25 goes the miner, so given ~63,072 blocks per year (15% of the total)… Cypherpunk stands to mint 78,840 ZEC, missing out on 19,710 ZEC that goes to the Dev Fund. Worth… at $1,200/ZEC… Turns out, 1+1=$23,652,000

Hello everyone, thanks. I’m Brian, and I’m developing a meme launchpad called zodd.fun. This is just an introductory message; I’ll look for the appropriate thread for my questions now. Thank you very much, and long live Zcash!

maxdesalle: I actually don’t understand this. If I tell you 1 + 1 = 2, does it matter who I am? 1+1=2 is true regardless of who I work for. You can and should evaluate arguments independently of who they are coming from. Obama tells you “We need to deport illegals, it is a matter of national security” CNN – 19 Oct 11 Obama’s deportation record: inside the numbers | CNN Politics A record number of people were deported from the United States last year, federal officials announced Tuesday. CNN writes: “The 396,906 figure is indeed a record – but not by much. A total of 392,862 people were deported in 2010 – a difference of little more than 1%, according to ICE … Read more ” Trump tells you “We need to deport illegals, it is a matter of national security” the Guardian – 5 May 25 John Oliver on Trump deportations: ‘usually blatantly racist and always cruel’ The Last Week Tonight host decries Trump’s fearmongering on immigration and disregard for the rule of law You see how it works? If you work for a company that has a vested interest in stopping competition or promoting centralisation… people are gonna point it out. Not to mention that is so dishonest it’s insane. 1+1=2 is a tautology, it’s always true. Your arguments are NOT. To pretend what you say is always true while claiming at the same time it’s an argument for something…

I think you’re mixing two different things here. I’m not saying your argument is wrong because you work with Cypherpunk. What I’m saying is that if you’re proposing to remove a funding mechanism, and you acknowledge that “ending the fund sends that issuance to miners,” then it is completely legitimate to examine who benefits economically from that change. It’s true that Zcash has received funding from investors. But I think you’re perfectly capable of distinguishing between an independent, voluntary investment or donation and a company that has invested in Zcash, operates for financial profit, and has now started actively mining Zcash. Your “1+1=2” analogy doesn’t really apply here. This isn’t mathematics; it’s an economic policy choice involving incentives and the redistribution of value generated by the protocol. As for my ZCG funding: yes, I received funding from ZCG. That doesn’t automatically make my argument correct, just as your relationship with Cypherpunk doesn’t automatically make your argument wrong. But there is an important difference: receiving a grant for a specific project is not the same as advocating a protocol change that would redirect future protocol issuance toward miners . And the organization you work with operates a large Zcash mining operation and is accumulating ZEC. Also, I have to admit, I’m actually glad you looked into the fact that I received ZCG funding after I wrote my message. At least you’re doing some research to find a counterargument. I