Talk:Zerocoin protocol

Latest comment: 2 years ago by 2A00:23C7:598B:6F00:3D34:1269:9622:E3E1 in topic Paper on extortion?

Merge to Bitcoin

edit

This isn't really a currency, per say, and I feel that it would be more suitable to merge with Bitcoin instead of keeping it as an independent stub. [citation needed] 23:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the tag as per discussion. TheDragonFire (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

May 2014?

edit

How was it decided that it would become a new currency in May 2014 if it isn't even May 2014 yet? That doesn't make any sense. 204.10.62.129 (talk)

Good point. I changed it to, "Zerocoin was originally proposed as an add-on to Bitcoin.[5] In January 2014, however, the Zerocoin developers announced that it would be released as its own cryptocurrency with circulation starting in May 2014.[6]"Chris Arnesen 16:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Zcoin advertising -

edit

The section on Zcoin contains quotes of the positive qualities of Zcoin vis-a-vis ZEC directly copied from zcoin.io website without sourcing. It therefore is un-referenced, and also a naked advert for Zcoin.

Nodium

edit

@Walterwhite81: The text you are proposing reads like a press release and is not supported by any reliable secondary sources. Content in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Retimuko (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Peter Power Armor Comment

edit

As a note, the short story called Peter Power Armor discusses the effect on human society when a double-blind electronic currency is used. I wrote an article about the short story when I first joined Wikipedia and the article was quickly deleted. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Removal of the Design section

edit

While the Design section in itself is informative, there are no sources external to the original paper used to support it. Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr-Bracket (talkcontribs) 03:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

In general, yes - if it's not in a third-party WP:RS (i.e., not primary and not a crypto blog), remove it - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I might come back to it in a week, so I actually have time to dig up sources. I somehow doubt however we're going to find reputable secondary sources on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr-Bracket (talkcontribs) 11:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
that's a problem, really - a lot of this stuff is just ... not very notable? Compare Bitcoin, for which there are endless secondary sources. Even minorly interesting coins are likely to have some peer-reviewed academic works about them - may be worth dredging Google Scholar - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Zcash uses Zerocash, not Zerocoin.

edit

I feel like it is worthy of a mention in the article, and possibly under a new section titled Zerocash; but it should not be in the section under Zerocoin implementations. The confusion might come their company being called the "Zerocoin Electric Coin Company", but from their own description of Zk-snarks cites the zerocash paper here: https://z.cash/technology/zksnarks (cites [1]) Dr-Bracket (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

References

Paper on extortion?

edit

Is there a paper that discusses prospects for use of stronger anonymity to facilitate low risk extortion, e.g., ransomware? The prospect of amplifying a ~$20 billion per year, unambiguously criminal enterprise seems worth attention in discussing implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:598B:6F00:3D34:1269:9622:E3E1 (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Too many primary sources

edit

An preprint is just a self-published source. Is it a self-published source that has a lot of cites? That's one thing. But way too much of this article is self-sourced - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply