show your zec t-address ，and sign a messge “your opinion‘s text hash’ with your private key.
While i agree that this proposal has no chance at all i as well think that none of the proposals should be locked either, no matter how abstract, unreal, strange, whatever it may look. Each active proposal shows an valid option or alternative.
http://z-board.net/ , z-board is down now
Both of you will be suspended if it continues.
have no axe to grind, but fair enough, just used the “ignore” feature for the first time. forum already looks much better!
This is the point of this thread. Why shouldn’t miners have the same luxury? They were given the same promise.
Another point is this proposal will get first round feedback, then shot down. This are the intentions of this proposal.
1 - Reaffirm the 21million cap
2 - Show non miners how miners are feeling.
I was going to do something similar to find out which foundations are scared and which are not. Seeing the constination that this thread has casued I am going to write my proposals to be positive affirmations than changes, which makes them seem silly, but wow @boxalex has been given a tough time over just putting a suggestion forward.
c’mon people. if you don’t like it, that’s cool. just ignore it an move on. Or even better write a counter proposal - or ask for help writing a counter proposal.
If you are making an objection to parts of the proposal please be constructive with your feedback and ask for it to be added to the actual proposal.
@mika and @rex4539 - I agree with your sentiments entirely. do you feel these objections if added to the proposal will include your voice/opinion. Was just rereading your posts and saw they said pretty much this.
please would you register my objection in your proposal to increasing the 21million cap, two main reasons.
1 - it completely changes the economic incentives and puts us into uncharted waters.
2 - It would be seen as a major violation of the founding rules and akin to quantative easing. - or a bank bailout. this goes against the very spirit of bitcoin. zcash’s spiritual home
Something I cant understand and get a grip on is:
- by changing the 21million you are changing the inflation/deflation aspects
Can you address this? you seem in a better position to judge this than me.
I would like clarification on one point please:
Would you clarify where the extra 10% comes from
- is it extending the total emission curve,
- randomly printing more zec,
- extending a halving cycle?
It would really help me understand your proposal further.
(these are serious and please do add this to the proposal and answer the question, cheers mate.)
exactly why this thread should be shut down. the whole point of it is to antagonize already irritated people.
But I would like answers to my questions. are they not valid? I can see a legit reason for increasing the cap. but it depends on how box answers my questions. for example it could be argued that it would combat the inflation caused by the founders reward. Which is why I asked for more information about the inflation/deflation aspects.
idk if this is enough to break a core promise. but, no its not a troll thread and you treading it as such is really not helping.
Its an unpopular idea but no reason why it shouldn’t be suggested.
If nothing else peoples reactions have shown how important fixed supply is & commitment to that.
said all i need to to say about this subject - i’ll go ahead, and mute this thread because we’re not going to increase supply (everybody here knows that), and now it’s just wasting my time. no hard feelings - have a good one!
That’s the principe of this proposal but it’s not limited to these. It’s as well one where miners could have given input, unfortunatly it seems no miners are here at all expect 2-3 hobby miners.
That’s not a problem as long as it doesn’t result in personal attacks. I’am not one of these that must get positive feedback, negative feedback is very valuable as well so there is no problem with people giving this proposal a tough time, that’s actually how i should be for every proposal to discuss the down and upsites and how each proposals impacts the future. That’s totally ok mate.
Yes, it’s a bit hard to understand and it would be in my opinion a totally new approach, at least i’am not aware of any other project based on lend & lease from miners. Miners would still get “taxed” 10% from the blockrewards after 2020, but they would get them back later after 2028 with an additionally added 2.1M to be mined hence why i call this approach lend & lease.
yes, this would be the outcome for sure in the most favourable option. There are actually 3 optins which i mentioned but only 1, the lend & lease one, is worth discussing as the other 2 are self explaining and not really good options.
No, the amount should be added to be mined into the protocol, but not in 2020, but after 2028 not to influence the inflation rate negatively.
This is something that must be discussed. I think, but i’am not sure, it would add 1 or 2 more halving cycles to it and not extending the current halving cycles, but i didn’t get far that yet and didn’t make any full calculations on this.
It would change the inflation rate soonest after 2028 when the inflation rate in general is softened so it would have no impact meanwhile. That’s the whole idea of lend & lease from miners. After 2028 when the inflation rate is way lower the additionally coins are added to the consensus and added to the total remaining to be mined ZEC supply and the miners get back the 10% they have lend meanwhile for funding. Not sure if it explained it easy or understandable enough.
It’s not directly combating inflation rates but it’s as well not making the worse the next 8 years which is an actually very important part of this proposal and the lend & lease feature.
However, there are some minor effects that could lead to a lower inflation by design:
- the funding is 10% only and not 20% compared to several other proposals.
Another important aspec would be that these, no matter they are only 10%, they would be secure funds as much as a ZEC can be secured as quantity. With every opt-in/opt-out proposal there is a real chance that the ECC/ZF would end with effective only 1-20%, up to the mood of miners and if they decide to burn or donate.
Just arguments and as i said every proposal has it’s trade off’s, negative and positive effects. This is just an alternative proposal as i think it’s valid to show all possible funding sources beside the non-funding by default option.
And as said allready 10 times, i personally as well think it has any chance to get anywhere, but it is an interesting proposal, an interesting option that the different thoughts could even have weight in future discussions in 4, 8. 12 years…
Is this proposal ok in this form or does it have to get modified to get past the 31th august deadline?
If not, can someone please direct me what has to be changed to make it confirm?
I think so. I will go over it again. I am writing a few more of my own so it will get put into my list. cant guarantee I will get to it today, but I will do it by tomorrow if someone else you @'d doesn’t say something else first.
I think it’s fine to submit as a draft ZIP.
@sonya , i’am withdrawing this proposal, please remove it from the list at: Future of Zcash dev funding — megathread / everything in one place
@str4d , as this proposal is one of the few that is not yet commented, no need to do it either as i’am withdrawing it, just to spare you some time!
This was only an experimental proposal made to check if a valid option would be an option for the community
This proposal does not seem to get enough community support either so it would be only a waste of time and votes to push it further. Actually it got the most negative comments from all, lol.
I think the “votes” this proposal might get maybe are suited better for a proposal that has actually a chance to be choosen. Having in mind the overwhelming efford the ECC does to push their 20% favourite proposals it doesn’t make sense to have proposals that do not advocate a 20% dev fund splitting that much into various proposals that have minimal chances versus the proposals that are showcased by the ECC and it’s employees/affilates.
Therefore and due the above described personal arguments i choose to withdraw this proposal in favour of @Blocktown & @JamesTodaroMD proposal at Blocktown Development Fund Proposal: 10% to a 2-of-3 multisig with community involved Third Entity which seems for me personally the only one opposing a new 20% dev fund that has a chance.
I didn’t comment on this proposal in my review with @str4d because it had already been withdrawn.
However, for the record (and with my ZIP Editor hat on), ZIP 0 includes the following:
The ZIP Editors MAY reject a proposed ZIP or update to an existing ZIP for any of the following reasons:
- it manifestly violates common expectations of a significant portion of the Zcash community;
I would have to consult with my co-ZIP Editor @gtank on this, but if a ZIP that increases monetary base were proposed, it would have a good chance of being rejected (i.e. not merged even as a draft) on that basis.
Does this also count in the inverse? if a ZIP decreases the monetary base at the protocol level would that have a good chance of being rejected pre draft phase?
Note this is specifically for the protocol level. Please answer with your zip editors hat on.
dons ZIP Editor hat
The protocol can’t enforce that money is never burned (because keys can always be deleted or lost, and because it is possible to create addresses for which, under plausible cryptographic assumptions, demonstrably no-one has a private key).
Minting money and then immediately burning it is practically indistinguishable from never minting it.
So, in my opinion as a ZIP Editor, a proposal that either burns money, or reduces the amount minted, does not for that reason “manifestly violate common expectations of a significant portion of the Zcash community” – since (if they thought about it) members of the community could see that this can happen anyway.
takes off ZIP Editor hat
Speaking as myself, I think burning money is generally a bad idea. I also think that deliberately introducing features that lead to less predictable issuance is not a good idea.
Doesn’t make it a difference IF there is an intention to burn or it could happen unintentional.
Hard to formulate this one as a non-native English speaker, trying to explain it with a real life example:
For any FIAT currency i’am aware of it’s forbidden to destroy it intentionally by law and i’am pretty sure this includes any mechanism that would favour such behavour.
Now of course someone could loss his money/currencies somehow but this would be unintentional and hence not be a break of law. I hope you get the idea.
Now by officially deploying a mechanism that would allow intentionally to lower the supply it would in principe no more different than deploying a mechnism that intentionally increases the supply.
I fully agree to this by the way!!!
That depends on the jurisdiction. In the Euro Zone, “Member states must not prohibit or punish the complete destruction of small quantities of Euro coins or notes when this happens in private. However they must prohibit the unauthorised destruction of large amounts of Euro coins or notes.” In the US, destroying US bank notes or coins is normally illegal, but could in principle be protected by the First Amendment if the intent is as a speech act. In practice, laws against destroying money are largely symbolic and widely recognized to be unenforceable.