Any number of systems could have been implemented for voting, I suggested one few weeks back and detailed it. It doesnt take a big imagination to create improvised vote.
Current hashrate vote at that time before ASICS were on network would do the trick. All in favor option A switch to pool A, all in favor option B switch to pool B.
Voting with Zcash by sending 0.01 Zcash to Address A for option A, and sending 0.01 Zcash to Address B for option B. How much your vote weights would be measured by your remaining amount of Zcash compared to current mined supply on your wallet which would be done by a script.
Combining power of those 2 (getting vote from both holders and miners).
But no, I think your inner circle knows better.
At the end people voted, with their wallets unfortunately as they couldnt find any other way.
How about we try coming up with a better method if we’re not happy with the method used the first time? A poll posted on Twitter, and a Google form can both be gamed.
Edit: that’s an interesting idea @Trololino
It was, but now all the network is run by ASICS, and there is no point in such vote.
As for the holders, ASIC have been receiving mining rewards past 7-8 months, and dissapointed GPU miners sold, so we can guess the winner there as well.
You can ignore the polls all you want, the MAJORITY of the community was against ASIC. Can we agree on this alteast? All the things I have seen showed around 80%, can you show me anything that says different?
If we created a fork(new chain) with anti-asic code, it would not be ZCash then. I dont even know why you are saying this? Of course we can run whatever code we want, but it would not be Zcash. It would be a new coin…
So out of ATLEAST tens of thousands of ZCash people in the community, it didnt raise any red flags when 64 showed up to vote? Clearly the message to get out and vote was not heard. Re-reading the “call to vote” even now knowing I can sign up, still doesnt seem like its a call for the average community member on the forums to vote. It sounds like you guys are “PICKING” people.
I have nothing more to contribute here on the topic of ASICs and the governance vote that has not already been covered elsewhere in this forum. And as this thread appears to be veering off-topic, I’m going to stop contributing to its off-topic-ness
Zero-knowledge voting systems have been proposed, but even for them the problem is registration which, if youre going to vote at all, has to happen as it is the only prevention against double voting
(So if you didn’t ask to register… )
You couldnt double vote as the script would check balance after voting has ended. If the balance has moved, that vote would not carry any weight.
Say there is 5M zcash, and I own 1000.
Lets also say not all vote, but users with 4M coins participated in the vote.
I then send 0.01 Zcash for vote. My vote would count as 0.00025 % of the votes. But if I moved those 1000 to a different address to vote again, script would detect that 1000 coins were moved, and my vote would carry no weight (it would no longer be worth 0.00025% of all votes).
What prevents me from voting from as many addresses as I choose?
Z addresses remember?
ok… Let’s say you manage to whinge everyone into compliance - the entire Zcash community starts marching to the beat of your drum. Then what? What miraculous future do you foresee if you get your own way? And how is continued development paid for?
Yeah voting from Z addresses wouldnt work in this model. This isnt a perfect model for voting. I just think it would have been better than the one where 64 people decided for all.
Voting isnt anything new and many coins have it implemented already. Why Zcash hasnt added it, is a bigger question - maybe they dont want the community to decide.
Even Horizen is working on DAO for community voting.
But does it matter? I show polls, I show posts, but that isnt evidence enough. They can be “gamed”. Well the panel was “gamed”. The community was clearly against ASICs. The majority did not want them. So I dont see why my evidence, AKA polls are invalid, but your poll is valid because you “vetted” the people.
Thanks for your time and explanations! Keep up the great work!
We all would have liked more than 64 people
Are you serious right now? This is not the beat of “my drum”. This is what Zcash proposed and was accepted by the community. This has nothing to do with me, Im only trying to hold them accountable to the claims they made when they started Zcash. You cant just keep moving the goal post because something didnt work out the way you planned.
Let me spin this back to you. Do we just keep paying them to develop just to develop? At what point do we consider it Zcash complete? What if they have more ideas after we consider it complete? Do we just keep allowing them more and more funding to add more stuff?
Zclassic fork is a complete “Zcash”
They did away with the founders reward and now it’s complete
(come to think of it I want to see I heard of them going to Fork again, whatevs)
I dont think zclassic forked from Zcash, It was a clone. Holders of Zcash didnt receive Zclassic.
Yea sorry, reverse that I guess, no airdrop
Heres one of those zero-knowledge vote papers (share credit goes to Shawn), an actual use case not just theory, theres more around here https://www.nsd.ru/en/press/pubs/index.php?id36=633655
@Lisfin The Zcash Foundation Governance Panel results (even if they had had the opposite outcome) had no real weight on Zcash Company’s decisions. It was a way forward for the Zcash Foundation. Which, as you may already know, has just funded further development for ProgPOW, an ASIC resistant Algo.
Again, the most constructive way forward for the Development Fund questions is to come up with a way to get community consensus that can’t be gamed that the Zcash Company will take seriously. I agree with @str4d , a Twitter poll and Google form do not hit the mark especially when it comes to potentially millions of dollars to be spent on the Development of Zcash.
Yet you are saying “we should of voted” ealier. Now you are saying “even if you did it wouldnt of counted anyway” … I know you are trying to help, but your not making it sound any better. So the vote was a sham and had no effect…so why should I come up with a better way to vote, if that system will probly be ignored also?
I’m general I’m ok with extending the founder’s reward to pay for future development. Zcash seems to be considered on the leading edge of crypto privacy and that’s something I want to embrace and continue.
As enticing as free development sounds
a) The best cryptographers and developers won’t work for free
b) If the project will be continued, most likely someone is going to pay for development. What types of hidden conflicts of interest does that bring up? There’s been extreme accusations of such in the BTC world with Blockstream. I would prefer that ZEC doesn’t suffer a similar fate.
The vote came too late to force a fork mid-development cycle but that doesn’t mean it has no bearing on the way Zcash moves forward for the next development cycle.