people think it’ll take 2-3 years for ZEC to hit 10k. I believe it will happen within a year.just ZODL.
>>61326943What does it do if it doesn’t provide privacy for 99% of users like they acknowledge?
>>61327000my ZEC is shielded. yours isn’t?
>>61327026By default no not for most of my time. There’s a whole bunch of other shit they didn’t mention with regard to using it with other entities either. This thing glows worse than monero, dash and bytecoin combined. Can you prove it’s private?
>>61326943Up 45% today.This market is schizo
Lol, you reported me as spamming? That’s not very nice anon
>>61327046>Can you prove it’s private?yeah you can. people have spent hundreds of hours to analyze security. there are security proofs and audits.take a look at https://github.com/daira/zcash-security/blob/main/zcash-security.pdf - it goes component by component and proves why claimed security properties hold. talk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6UToqiIdeYit all rests on the fact that commitments are statistically hinding, nullifiers are pseudorandom, and ZK proofs are perfectly ZK.
>>61327096*hiding. computationally binding (but that’s irrelevant for privacy)
>>61327096Why it claims it’s private. Not proves it through claims anon. That’s the underlying point. YOU can’t prove it. Thereby it’s functionally useless for you to trust. Given all the other factors of public documentation, I’d say be careful. Because you haven’t been. If you’re malicious then hurry the fuck up and get it done
>>61327108>YOU can’t prove ityes, yes, no individual can verify everything down to the silicon. we go down to Ken Thompson's rabbit holehttps://web.archive.org/web/20010702132817/http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.htmlI trust Zcash the same amount I trust TLS or Signal.
>>61327126Trust. That’s a personal faith thing anon. There’s nothing there that provides intrinsic or inherent trust. Nothing to do with the project and didn’t address my issue with why you are incorrect. Yes, you can spam someone else’s bullish take all day. It’ll be endless. Can YOU prove it without faith. The answer is no anon. You need to be honest here. I’ve read the documentation, probably not all of it. But the premise is inherently flawed. If you want to be honest we can have a technical discussion. But foundational things cause a contradiction and there are inherent issues disclosed. I’m trying another way to have the conversation. I don’t believe you are arguing in such bad faith because you are huffing cope, I don’t think you could be that ignorant and desperate in good faith. But time will tell.
>>61327126So your underlying argument is that. “Encryption is always secure, and thereby I trust it inherently” is that it?
>>61326943isnt their HQ like right next to FBI HQ
