Would you be ok if they changed the algo again and kicked off all the current ASICs forcing you to buy 90k worth of hardware AGAIN…How many times do you accept them doing this before you become upset?
I guess its not such a big deal when you can just throw that much money at a coin when they change their stated parameters. Some people cant “reinvest” into new ASIC hardware everytime there is a change.
The people that got the first and second batch of ASICs are the ones that profited, Anyone else is screwed on ROI. But hey, atleast you “adapted” and bought the first or second batch units. What about everyone else that wasnt lucky enough because of short supplies?
But lets act morally superior, because you “adapted” and gambled on the new ASIC and that Zcash would not fork them off.
My point exactly. What is to prevent them from saying
"We are not going to change the mining rewards. But we need more funding. So we have increased the total coin supply to 42 million.That way we get double the funding now and you get to keep your mining rewards, its a WIN/WIN for everyone!"
Would people be ok with this? This would be taking coins from everyone, not just the miners.
I think alot more people would be upset at this decision, but taking more coins from the miners is “ok”.
Both ways increase funding, however im sure lots of people wouldnt want them to increase the money supply, but the same people think its ok to increase the founders rewards taking from the miners because it does not effect them.
I dont know if its just me to notice this, but this seems scripted. To ask for extending of funding at this time when all of investors confidence in you is shaken to say the very least is not really smart thing to do.
Note that at no point was I even asking for the Founders Reward to be extended in a personal capacity. I was discussing the idea of an extension, and by extension (pun very much intended) Arjun’s 2019 prediction for Zcash:
I did ask this question at the start of this thread, Im not sure I got a straight answer.
Has there been any talks with the Zcash teams about changing the current mining rewards in ANY way?
With the way Zooko said “I think this is the best, most insightful and comprehensive “turn of the year investor perspective” on the cybercoin market I’ve ever seen” , it sounds like he agrees with everything in that blog.
This is why I am asking if there have been any talks about changing the foundation rewards?
I’m a little late to this thread but I want to weigh in. Not on the link Zooko posted, but on the subsequent discussion.
First: It’s not true that the governance process participants came from some kind of elitist closed group. @Shawn pointed out that I posted a broad call for participation here, and I made several similar entreaties on Twitter. We only rejected two of the people who applied. One was a known bad actor and the other was someone who didn’t seem to have any actual interest in Zcash.
@Dodger once said it like this: “Decisions are made by those who show up.” (Not sure who coined the line originally, but Dodger introduced me to it.) Anyone who can’t be bothered to fill out a brief application form and respond to a couple of emails is choosing not to have an impact, through their own inaction.
All of that said, there was no universe in which the Foundation was going to immediately fork to “GPU-only Zcash” or whatever. Like @str4d said, and like @daira has said many times, Zcash is a complex technology. You can’t make changes on the fly without a high risk of catastrophe.
But anyway, I can answer this question:
Yes. Virtually anyone who has discussed the future of Zcash with the ZcashCo team has hit on this topic. Zooko has pondered it publicly on Twitter, IIRC. No one has made any kind of final decision (to my knowledge). Because again, Zcash is complex.
I also want to respond to a post from earlier up in the thread:
It seems like this is the crux of the issue: “Who gets to make changes, and who decides who gets to make changes?”
That’s what the GPUs versus ASICs conversation is about, beneath the surface. That’s largely what the ZEF kerfuffle was about. As @acityinohio and I wrote at the time:
The Foundation opposes any change to the Zcash Founders’ Reward, even those that may benefit our balance sheet. Without overwhelmingly broad consensus, monetary policy changes cannot be supported — particularly ones that redistribute a longstanding disbursement to the protocols’ critical contributors. Our own governance process revealed split opinions on whether we should even discuss changing monetary policy, which bolsters this view.
Of course, recipients of the Founders’ Reward can use their funds however they choose, and that is distinct from altering Zcash monetary policy. We are grateful that some of them have chosen to pledge portions of their funds to the Foundation.
“Who gets to make changes, and who decides who gets to make changes?” Well, the realpolitik answer is: Whoever controls the node software, the GitHub repo, and the trademark. So right now, it’s the Zcash Company and anyone able to influence its executives’ decisions.
But that’s only if you care about being called Zcash. Under any other name, the answer is, whoever can get enough developers and users to sustain a fork or a clone. (For example, Horizen seems to be chugging along.)
One of the great things about the cryptocurrency world is that there is competition and you can choose exit over voice. You can move your funds into cybercoins that you like better, or find more reliable, or whatever. Or you can muster a group of fellow exiters to make your own thing.
And it didnt raise any red flags when only 64 people showed up to vote? Clearly the call for participation wasnt heard by the majority. Even now after reading the call to vote, It still sounds like it wasnt a open vote for anyone that wanted to be involved.
It is intended to be “a broad collection of people who have contributed in some way to the Zcash community via some public & visible presence.”
Does that sound like, ANYONE who uses Zcash can come and vote! ANYONE!..no it does not.
Once again, only 64 people showed up, Zcash has THOUSANDS of people, how did this not raise any red flags? Evidently the call to vote was not heard. I was very active at the time, I also remember reading about the vote. Nowhere in the post did it sound like the average user was able to apply. It sounded like people that have contributed to Zcash were being allowed. Not OPEN TO ANYONE that used Zcash.
Lets say Zcash has 1000 users(Its probly ATLEAST 10x this)…64 people voted out of 1000…WOW a 0.64% turn out rate…Its probly orders of magnitude worse. As str4d kept saying "how representative is it of the community?"
And this is the problem. The community was against ASICs, yet here we are fully ASIC. Will the same happen with the funding vote? We have no control, you guys have 100% control. Just like with ASICs, the majority was against them, even if you dont want to be belive it, because “your vote” was different. We had no say in this decision, even though you said we “voted for it”, that is complete BS, the MAJORITY was against ASICs.
This is what I am worried about. Sure you can say we voted and were heard. But clearly that did not represent the majority. Even if we voted “NO” for ASICs, you guys keep saying there was “NO TIME” to add the algo change. So even if we DID vote to fork, it would of not happened anytime soon anyway. So basically, does not matter what we vote.
But keep blaming your users for not getting out to vote…
This thread totally derailed and has by now nothing in common with the headline of the topic …
All the asic voting discusion should be moved to the “Let’s talk about asics” topic and only posts about predictions for 2019 left here.