LOL. Why did you do this “until the fork is complete”? If you can figure out a way to signmessage a vote for the Zcash NU3 mascot using your XMR, I’d love to know what XMR coin-holders think. 
P.S. If the reason that you did it “until the fork is complete” is for financial reasons, that’s fine and I don’t have any opinion about your choices there, although I’m curious. If you did it for technical reasons, I’m dying to know what they are.
Moral reasons.
To be clear I have no moral issue with YEC. I will be mining I after the fork. (with 2 gpus) I have moral issues with forks, especially after the chain has reached a certain size. I don’t think this thread needs my morality laid out. so I will leave it there.
If you really want my view on the technical stance I have PM’d it to you.
Instead of posting the signed message to the forum (which would associated the forum user with the given address used for voting), would it be possible to instead “post” the message to a single “vote tally” Sapling address via the encrypted memo field?
(But this would limit the voting to Sapling addresses.)
The way to make this work using Sapling (I think!) would be to transfer funds into a single-purpose (never previously used) Sapling address, and then submit a transaction with an expiry of block 570,000 (being the last block to be mined in) and selecting an anchor from block 569,999, which sends a zero-value output to the target recipient, and all funds out of the Sapling address (to a second single-purpose address). Then reveal the full viewing key (or possibly just the outgoing viewing key) for the first single-purpose address (not the second, for privacy). The block height window restriction (the transaction can only be mined in a single block) prevents people from creating multiple votes (because they can’t double-spend their funds within a single block), and using a fresh address (which should only be used for public-intended voting) means that only the transaction information for that usage is revealed. The downside to this is that if the transaction doesn’t get mined in the intended block, the vote doesn’t get counted.
Another alternative would be to create such a transaction, but not mine it, instead sending the transaction off-chain directly to some tally service (or posting it in the forum, or…). The fund-sending output would be sent like a change output (going back to the single-use address itself), eliminating the need for managing two such addresses. Using both an anchor and expiry of 570,000 would prevent the transaction from being mined, and would prove existence of the funds at that height. It would also reveal the nullifier corresponding to those funds, which would both ensure the funds were unspent at that height, and prevent a “double-spend” vote (because you’d see two votes with the same nullifier(s) being revealed). This also means that the nullifier could be detected later in chain when the funds are moved away from the address, but that’s not a terrible privacy leak if the tooling for doing this (wallets etc) move the funds out of the single-purpose address shortly after the vote. This could also be done after-the-fact without requiring the user to be online at the exact target block height (as long as the funds were moved into a “voting address” before the target block height), and in fact could be created after the funds have already been moved out of the voting address post-target height.
Taking this in the spirit I think you intended, that of jest and light heartedness.
I now have a 15% bigger position in zec from opting out of the YEC fork.
(This was in no way my intention, just happened by complete luck hence the spirit of jesting)
Okay, this process of experimenting and iterating has already delivered its first lesson! I forgot that the simple signmessage approach only works for taddrs, and all my ZEC was in zaddrs as of block 570,000, so now I can’t vote with it. 
Okay, I have to either wait for a future block, and I’ll unshield some of my ZEC then to vote in the straw poll, or else someone has to implement str4d’s idea for shielded signmessage.
Is anyone else gonna cast their Coin Holder’s Straw Poll vote for a codename for NU3?
I’d be happy to participate. To do this I’ll need a step by step guide on how to make the voting right and not F it up - you also mentioned in your previous post that if done incorrectly it might put the coins at risk.
If anyone has the time to write a guide or a short instruction on how to do the pooling that would be great. If it also contains things we should avoid while following the steps - even better! 
Haven’t claimed any ycash
You don’t need to claim any Ycash. The point is many people will have a copy of the ZEC private key used for signing messages for an address at the fork point so they could claim them either now or later.
It’s pretty straightforward to sign a message and see the post here from Andrew Miller Coinholder Petitions using t-Addresses. If you are using zcashd then the format is simply (from the RPC help https://zcash-rpc.github.io/signmessage.html)
zcash-cli signmessage "t14oHp2v54vfmdgQ3v3SNuQga8JKHTNi2a1" "my message"
With Trezor you can sign a message for an address in the wallet interface. I don’t think that’s currently possible with Ledger Live.
Of course, if you simply say publish this to your forum profile you’ll be revealing your balance.
./zcash-cli verifymessage t1QfpmMdnZXG42Gw9VSgUiiKVyZen4HJpT4 IG2wgAEU7iTeYmGay44n+G15OjRmBN8kfM8wcEfPlNIlZ9+qiFgB2VDPUs1g/NeyeR6fa1/uAUa3bU5bqmfDxEU= “I think Bloom is probably the best choice :)”`
(this is a vote, formatted for easy verification!)
`
Someone sent me a shielded memo and requested that I post this here:
“NU3 should be named Bloom” t1eRojqxyDqyDHZ7VJsZvzkBmqaf32wmpQw ILe94I/pcj2VVmBOfPRypo7l8A10Uvr2SDRN79UpAdNrSmqZQAr1lBECkZizqtN5Y6aMDfNiBrTBOjoDQmDVi8w=
So far it looks like two out of two Coin Holders are in favor of Bloom! Looking at https://zcha.in/accounts/t1eRojqxyDqyDHZ7VJsZvzkBmqaf32wmpQw and https://zcha.in/accounts/t1QfpmMdnZXG42Gw9VSgUiiKVyZen4HJpT4 that’s two coin-holders with a total of almost 1500 ZEC!?
I hereby declare that the first Zcash Coin-Holder’s Straw Poll will be over a week from tomorrow — Friday July 2!
I request that Nathan — or whoever is making the decision about what ECC calls NU3 — accept the preference of the Zcash Coin Holders unless they think they really need to over-ride it for some reason!
Nathan: do you agree to do that?
Does the amount of zec make a difference?
I was clearing out some old USB sticks and found 4 separate private keys with virtually no balance. but they do have some balance (on change address so its very very low amounts. does that get me 4 votes for heartwood? or because of the low balance it isn’t as relevant? (I doubt this is the case, but if I only have to beat two votes…)
They are effectively 4 different account at the time of the fork, so 4 votes right?
Out of interest is it the amount of zec in the poll or the number of addresses that participate that is used to form a quorum? (yes I know its a straw poll)
heck, I just realised my brother has like 8 different zaccounts that all had balances at the fork. so is that 12 votes I can cast now?
Yes the amounts make a difference as creating addresses is essentially free.
It would be good if there was a Sapling address to send the signed message in a memo too like z-board.net but that doesn’t seem to exist anymore.
EDIT: wait a tick, so 1 address with 1.5k coins has more or less weight in votes than 1.5k addresses all with 1 coin? ( I cant see a difference) and creating addresses might be free, but putting a balance on them isn’t. can I person who puts 1.6k coins out rank 1.5k people who all put up 1 coin?
I cant create a prefork address tho, or one that had a balance at the time of the fork. but seeing as money matters more I wont bother “voting”. (and zooko you might have to deshiled more of your zec if you want your vote to count.)
that one person who wanted bloom with 1500 zec looks like they have bought their position. Well done them.
Isn’t polling great, yet pointless at the same time.
I don’t like this idea. Can you please qualify what counts as a quorum for this and the zec/account ratio for something to count. It sets a bad precedent. (I know this is a fun thing, but I really don’t like the way it looks)
I am happy with a monarchy,
I am happy with a benevolent dictator,
I am happy with a tyranny of the majority (voting)
but tyranny of the wealthy? isn’t that what we are trying to avoid?
This only works for T addresses correct? So users like me who hold the majority of thier Zcash in a private addresses would not be able to participate?
I don’t think this is sybil-resistant, but pretty much all of the name options are fine, so I’m not too worried about.
That is the issue - how can you tell those 1.5k people are 1.5k people with 1 ZEC or 1 coin holder who has split their 1500 ZEC over all those addresses? The financial cost of performing these transactions are somewhat trivial (even assuming the default fee 1500 transactions would be a little over $10 in fees). For someone motivated enough if the incentive is high enough this would certainly happen.
I do think an indicative vote based on stake is informative assuming it is non-binding (for something more meaningful than that proposed).
I agree, but 1.5k people are not going to vote because of that one large “vote” this is not a straw poll by any interpretation.
I was going to vote 12 times, from 12 addresses but the total sum is 0.0002311 something on each account (like 0.01cents) there is no point me going through the motions to vote now.
Also as shawn pointed out, if he wants to vote he is going to have to deshield a large portion if not all of his coins to even get a vague hope of his vote meaning something. If this is considered acceptable on something as trivial as name selection, why does it feel like a dry run for something else.
And to be fair, zooko hasn’t directly stated more zec = more weight. so it is just an assumption.
You see the obvious contradiction here? As such that 1500 ZEC holder feels that their single vote (assuming they hold it in one address) isn’t worthwhile. This is why centralised voter registration systems exist and the community governance panel, which not perfect, is also a very valuable indicative input for future decisions such as these.