News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Keybase chooses Zcash by detaro on Thursday November 17, 2016 @12:42PM (#12979582)
How large is the overhead in numbers? I tried to search but didn't find any clear examples.

EDIT: found some data in the ceremony report linked elsewhere in this discussion: https://petertodd.org/2016/cypherpunk-desert-bus-zcash-trust...

Re:Keybase chooses Zcash by petertodd on Thursday November 17, 2016 @01:39PM (#12980111)
Sending takes a few minutes of computation on your wallet - but that's not such a big deal as it's comparable to the time it takes for block confirmations anyway.

The problem is verification of private transactions is very slow by cryptocoin standards, and verification is something that every full node and miner must do. Zcash would fail if private transactions were used in large numbers, as blocks would take too long to validate for mining to remain decentralized; Bitcoin transactions are a few orders of magnitude faster to validate, with a 4x more conservative block interval and 2x smaller blocksize, and the Bitcoin dev community has had to make heroic efforts to further optimize validation.

Re:Keybase chooses Zcash by daira on Friday November 18, 2016 @07:14AM (#12986189)
There are ways to significantly reduce the cost of zk proof verification by batching (that are compatible with the existing Zcash protocol without a fork).
Re:Keybase chooses Zcash by petertodd on Friday November 18, 2016 @08:26AM (#12986550)
Prove it first by actually implementing those ways and having them survive peer review; this is highly experimental crypto so it's not clear what's actually possible.

Again, I don't think it's very responsible to knowingly release design a protocol that in its current form would collapse if heavily used due to a lack of safety limits.