Hacker News Reader

Comment by woah | Hacker News Reader

Wasn't the issue just that they couldn't mine into anonymous addresses?

The issue prevented all transactions which had all z-address inputs and outputs (that is, fully anon txes) and no t-address inputs or outputs (public addresses) from being mined.

What is your source for this claim? I did these kind of transactions during the beta.

This is well known: https://github.com/zcash/zcash/issues/1705

The ticket says "In some cases, some transactions with joinsplits do not get mined." So this does not prove droffels point. He said all tx with only z-addresses could not be mined.

Any other source for this claim?

He's 100% correct, as is the GitHub issue. Transactions that were z-addr -> t-addr, or vice versa, were being mined, but private transactions (my z-addr pays your z-addr) were not.

Per the ZCash website (https://z.cash/blog/state-of-the-network-2016-10-31.html) -

"There is one known bug, which causes private transactions (those in which all of the inputs and outputs are shielded addresses) to not get mined."

I am sure, you're mistaken. I just created and executed a tx with only z-addresses with zcashd version 1.0.1. It was mined and can be found on the block exlorer.

Please stop spreading FUD about zcash.

It's not FUD, he's entirely correct. They had one thing to get right before launch, and they got it wrong. Speaks volumes for the so-called dream team. References:

- https://github.com/zcash/zcash/issues/1705

- https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/zcash-bug-prevents-private-t...

It is FUD, because droffel claims no private tx could be mined.

No he doesn't. Go read what he wrote again. Private transactions (one z-addr sends to another z-addr) were not being mined.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com