zec
/
zips
mirror of https://github.com/zcash/zips.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

ZIP 320: Add a note about user experience downsides to Alternative 1

This commit is contained in:
Kris Nuttycombe 2024-01-13 09:32:53 -07:00
parent 2e103629a6
commit e1f43c6760
2 changed files with 4 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

1
zip-0320.html
View File

@ -186,6 +186,7 @@ impl TryFromAddress for TraceableReceiver {
</section>
<section id="cons-to-alternative-1"><h3><span class="section-heading">Cons to Alternative 1</span><span class="section-anchor"> <a rel="bookmark" href="#cons-to-alternative-1"><img width="24" height="24" class="section-anchor" src="assets/images/section-anchor.png" alt=""></a></span></h3>
<ul>
<li>Existing wallets and other Consumers will regard the new address type as entirely invalid, and will not automatically prompt their users that they need to upgrade in order to send to this type of address.</li>
<li>Creation of a new fully-distinct address type further fragments the Zcash address ecosystem. Avoiding such fragmentation and providing smooth upgrade paths and good error messages to users is exactly the problem that Unifed Addresses <a id="footnote-reference-17" class="footnote_reference" href="#zip-0316-unified-addresses">5</a> were intended to avoid.</li>
<li>The TEX address type does not provide any mechanism for address expiration. One of the questions Binance has asked has been what to do about users who have stored their existing transparent deposit address in their wallets, or as a withdrawal address for other exchanges or services. This is a challenging problem to mitigate now because address expiration was not previously implemented. We should not further compound this problem by defining a new distinct address type that does not provide a mechanism for address expiry.</li>
</ul>

3
zip-0320.rst
View File

@ -299,6 +299,9 @@ Pros to Alternative 1
Cons to Alternative 1
---------------------
- Existing wallets and other Consumers will regard the new address type as
entirely invalid, and will not automatically prompt their users that they
need to upgrade in order to send to this type of address.
- Creation of a new fully-distinct address type further fragments the Zcash
address ecosystem. Avoiding such fragmentation and providing smooth upgrade
paths and good error messages to users is exactly the problem that Unifed