Agree. 1/ Discussion is good. The only way Zcash wins is through discussion. Crosslink could be a terrible idea but calling the very discussion of it an attack or a risk is closed minded and fragile. FWIW I do think a random tweet about Crosslink from the Zcash handle was provocative and maybe unnecessary but I'm glad for the conversation it's prompting. Below are why I'm particularly concerned about shutting down security conversations early. 2/ The "encrypted Bitcoin" narrative only works if Zcash can get the hashrate. After my deep dives into PoUW hashrate economics I do not think this will happen. The economics aren't there. Pearl is at least 20x as capital efficient and it's PoW. Yes Pearl is early but try to understand it. It also may be the first of many PoUW chains. I am not the only person who thinks this BTW. It's just a blind spot for many because PoUW is so new and poorly understood. 3/ If my concerns in 2 materialize then Zcash best move is to lean into an alternative security model from PoW or to find an alternative work based algorithm with better economics for miners. 4/ Both 2 and 3 might be obsolete arguments if there's a fast move toward market share from Zcash. Sometimes the best tech doesn't win because of network effects. But I think that's harder without going directly for small quick transaction use cases with extreme haste. I don't think Zcash is on a path to replace Visa faster than Pearl or other PoUW can decisively outcompete Zcash on security. Finally, I'm sorry but I'm not here to engage in a deep conversation about this today. The conversations I've seen so far are tiring and impolite. I'll talk to people about it at Zcon and can answer questions later. Most of the information is already public on my profile.