If coinholder voting becomes as centrally important as it appears to be shaping up to be..
I hope there is a mechanism by which voting-coins are proven to be a certain age, as I think was suggested by doze. This would mitigate maneuvers I would view as attacks, such as:
*flash-buy,
*vote to spend all funds on something useless or bad for zec nullifying ZCG or worse,
*flash-sell,
*laugh at ZEC going down in flames (maybe with a meme manufacturing budget already allocated from mining reward)
At current price levels I think this is a realistic concern.
How expensive was the sandblast? IIRC it was not very… but this would be technically easier.
With a time constraint it wouldn’t completely disallow actors who don’t like zec from voting, but they would have to zodl for a while to do that, essentially staking zec for that privilege.
What would be a good time bound? Minimum 1 year? I don’t know.
I also don’t immediately know if this would be technically feasible with shielded funds, or how it would be done. Would it leak information? Is that acceptable?
I’ve explained the rationale here, anything you’re not understanding @conradoplg?
They can vote with their tokens, but it now has an additional cost that @joshsmay have decided was worth it. Let’s see how well this ages.
edit: I have added “may have” because the reality is that even if his answer gives a hint, @joshs has not yet elected to answer the question ("We will publicly disclose how we vote and with how much.).
What question you believe I haven’t answered. I stated that we will vote, and that we would disclose how we vote and how much we voted with. Note that I don’t believe that we are obligated to do that, but am doing it for the sake of transparency.
You said “We will publicly disclose how we vote and with how much.”.
So at this point we just don’t know whether you will use ZEC tokens acquired through the dev fund. That was the initial question. You only said it was fair to use those tokens, but that doesn’t say that you will use them.
btw,
Would you like to tell us how the vote will be interpreted? What happens if the majority of stakeholders support one thing and the “community of dev fund recipients” supports another.
Yes, time for transparency where it matters @joshs.
Hopefully you now see how not answering or answering the wrong thing has a cost @conradoplg & @dismad.
@joshs has too much power and he is abusing it; all I am doing is expose that fact, limiting his options in the process. And I think it’s going to work.
Not only do ECC and ZF get to interpret the results in a way that has not been communicated, they also get to vote in multiple instances of the poll. What kind of banana republic are we in here??
At least ZF has decided not to participate to the coin holder vote, and we can all be appreciative of that.
ECC however, is pulling all the wrong moves. And it’s not just @joshs. The attempts of their employee @daira to kick me out of the forum, followed by her censorship of a governance ZIP is starting to be a bit too much imho.
The significance of POW proof of work is that the people who set the rules of the game do not participate in the distribution of benefits. The problem with ASIC mining machines is that mining machine manufacturers manipulate the distribution of benefits. So YCash is the real Bitcoin!
This is where @joshs got lost. From what I can gather reading him looks to me that he’s thinking the incentives are all conveniently neat and clean. He could not be more wrong. This model works for a PoW chain without a dev fund, but evidently breaks with one. PoS will restore the balance of power, but until then I would have appreciated that the people in power do not take advantage of it. The inflation belongs to stakeholders and it follows that they should have some level of control on how it should be spent, and absolute power over whether or not it should continue at all.
It makes no sense at all to ask people receiving money from the dev fund whether they want it to continue. It’s a bad joke, a disrespectful one.
It’s honestly debatable (https://nakaflow.io/) but I agree there’s some truth to what you say. Actually I understand Shielded Labs / Zooko are pushing for a hybrid PoW/PoS model, at least initially, probably in part for that reason.
What I was saying though, was that PoW is not sustainable if we are to keep a dev fund; the power distribution and incentives are broken. Without dev fund, such as Ycash, PoW makes perfect sense.
@aquietinvestor I get your arguments and I appreciate your approach.
I would be willing to support the Community and Coinholder Funding Model (C&C) as well. And like you, I would want to see the voice of stakeholders be increased over time.
But, I would ask that the vote becomes legitimate in return.
Poll as much of the community as possible first, so that stakeholders can take the community opinion in consideration.
Poll stakeholders
Stakeholders vote is binding
As it should be, really.
With this model, I would also support ZF and ECC voting with the tokens they have earned from the dev fund, given they would not anymore be in a situation where they can accumulate multiple ways of voting for the same outcome.
Now, given you will not support the Pure Coinholder Funding Model, this changes my equation a bit. I am considering voting to block the dev fund. I don’t want to do this, but neither do I want a sham vote so essentially it’s a choice of either we, stakeholders and dev fund recipients, work together, or against each others.
Objectively, anyone doing anything decentralized to protect privacy and build for scale is using the cryptography we discovered and engineered into code.
We’re not done, still running ahead, and in our dawn. People are waking up. See Vitalik’s post and the response to @zooko’s calling out of Binance just within the last week.
In a world of increasing censorship, surveillance, and attempts to control - we continue to build for self-sovereignty. We will win.
Zingo Labs are significantly less hierarchical organizations than the ECC, and as such I can’t announce an official position.
That having been said, I often convince Zingoistas, that my opinions and stances are reasonable.
With that explanation of how I relate to the Zingo Labs efforts, I am announcing that I believe that the ECC’s position is the right one with respect to funding, for a few reasons.
Why I Agree With “the ECC”:
(1) We should proceed with evidence-informed skepticism.
Zcash funding has been amazingly effective for it’s entire existence consistently supporting cutting edge technology that uniquely serves human autonomy and dignity, in an often remarkably hostile environment.
Zcash funding is among the ground-breaking innovations that have created this dynamic innovative movement. It’s been a fantastic success! Nevertheless it can and should be improved on.
By introducing a new funding mechanism (coin weighted voting) alongside the traditional (ZCG) model, we provide ourselves with a basis for comparison. We can ask ourselves which model serves which purposes, and use those observations to reason about future innovations.
(2) If it ain’t broken don’t fix it…
ZCG funding has been a success. Against a skeptical backdrop, the current funding model has repeatedly succeeded in the difficult task of cultivating essential innovations.
We should leverage and build on that success.
(3) There’s no need for drama.
Outrage and melodrama sell (our attention to parasitic demons). Things are going well, we should leverage our healthy position to innovate, in a thoughtful and responsive way.
A dramatic Over Reactive shift would be unwarranted and unpredictable.
(4) KISS, Keep It Simple S
Smaller change is easier.
So that’s it, I am all in on C&C along with @joshs
Per the extension of the dev fund, in the face of delaying NU7.
Why I support the extension, even if it delays NU7.
This is the right policy because reality doesn’t care about our self-imposed constraints, we should take the time to do things right.
Zingoista = “A self-designated identity that overlaps with Zingo Labs hacktivists at least to the degree that I consider myself to be one of each.”