From e1f43c67603652ad3651b873ffb41bad4f900e5f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kris Nuttycombe <kris@nutty.land>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:32:53 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] ZIP 320: Add a note about user experience downsides to
 Alternative 1

---
 zip-0320.html | 1 +
 zip-0320.rst  | 3 +++
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/zip-0320.html b/zip-0320.html
index f8e4891e..c29bb3eb 100644
--- a/zip-0320.html
+++ b/zip-0320.html
@@ -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>
diff --git a/zip-0320.rst b/zip-0320.rst
index bca6d796..8de19635 100644
--- a/zip-0320.rst
+++ b/zip-0320.rst
@@ -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