True, but such argumentation could apply to the different dev rewards, first a founders reward, now a dev reward … sounds as well as doing it again and again …
No, the founders reward doesn’t change the monetary supply - future development funding shouldn’t do it either by my previous argument.
To be more specific about the effect of the development fund which is arranged such that a portion of the mining reward is redirected into the development fund:
This has no (direct) effect on coin-holders since the same amount of Zcash is issued per time.
It reduces the amount of value which coin-holders transfer into hashpower and redirects it towards development of Zcash.
Maybe i formulated it wrong or you didn’t got the idea, doesn’t matter. I mean by breaking a promise and changing the consensus. A future dev fee changes the consenus as a change in the montatry base would change it.
Only some mandatory proposals offer this option that you describe here. You are aware this is not the same like opt-in/opt-out, right?
It’s not yet clear if this will be the case. It’s a question i adressed but i didn’t get yet a final answer. The option to burn coins could as well mean that they are not minted/mined, are not issued and don’t get into circulation which as a result would as well interfere with the monetary supply, just the other way.
This again would only be true IF it’s a mandatory funding, not opt-in/opt-out. With opt-in/opt-out there is a theoretical chance that miners, for whatever reason, burn 100% of these proposed to be a dev fund minted or not minted coins, leaving dev funding with 0 ZEC toward development of Zcash.
What if exactly this happens?
We were talking about the effects of changing the monetary supply - about increasing the monetary supply to be more specific. That’s what you have quoted. Effects of co
nsensus changes is a different topic.
Yes, I’m aware about the opt-in/opt-out proposals.
I don’t think they are functional given the assumption that every participant is trying to maximize his short term revenue. Furthermore it’s a risky approach under the given constraints. Just imagine we decide to implement an opt-in/opt-out approach now - and discover at the end of 2020 that all/most miners prefer to opt-out to increase his revenue by reducing the monetary supply.
It clearly has no direct effect on coin-holders - because it doesn’t change the coin issuance unlike an approach which increases the monetary supply. It surely will have indirect effects on coin-holders - e.g. it’s likely that a strong development of Zcash will increase the value of the network - but the indirect effects are not what I was talking about.
Actually we don’t know yet if the community rejects such proposal. We have some few forum voices and the foundations voice so far. You could of course be right, but referring from some posts and people to “THE community” is a bit far from reality without polling/voting in my opinion.
For example there is no stance so far from Miners, hardware producers, mining pools, ECC, VCs, other people in the Zcash eco system beside the forum members that commented.
As said, you could be absolutly right, but for now it’s not backed up without further feedback from all involved groups…
I don’t think some of the people you mentioned have a lot of say in the 21M limit. VCs, mining pools, and miners cannot dictate what software the zec users run. Zec holders/users are really in charge of that. I think we already saw this play out with the bitcoin UASF event where miners tried and failed to dictate a change to bitcoin.
I’am only talking about referring to “the community”, not how finally has the say or not.
One of the reasons why i hope the sooner the better the community governance panel is used and of course upgraded to a level like proposed in this proposal. The feedback so far to the community goverance panel so far and to include all streams, holders, investors, miners, mining pools, VCs, hardware producers, ECC, foundation, forum members has so far positive feedback.
If we had that panel allready we would/could find out easier what the community stance is on many matters, hence i hope it gets pushed forward faster.
Can you elaborate on what the differences between 90% to miners and 21 million are please. and why those breaks in the foundations of zcash are not a slippery slope, and why one is more important than the other
This is very frustrating, people clearly understand 21million, making this a fixed cap coin, so miners don’t cause inflation development and founders rewards do.
I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of why the total coin cap cannot be increased, yet people are happy to see it decrease. (at the expense of breaking a contract. Sure this one offends you, but others are equally if not more offended by changing the block distribution therefore causing inflation.
No one seemed to notice that the foundation gave a large amount of zec back to the ECC in their “redistribution scheme”
I agree it is absurd we have to make proposals for the initial contract to be kept. but lets find out what pillars are sacred.
I think increasing the coin count is a horrible idea. I’m loosing trust in the system due to the thought of a coin count change. Investors and users should be able to buy and make decisions base on a 10-20yrs time horizon. At this rate there can be a coin count change multiple times in a decade. Our coin count should never change. ECC should look for other alternatives to make money if need be.
No. While it has 0 chance to get anywhere i still think it’s a valid proposal and option at least for comparison to other proposals. There is no reason why it should be removed.
If someone is afraid of this proposal, and there is really no need to do so, there are enough other proposals that you can support, here a list of all proposals so far:
Yes and no in my opinion. If more an more people are against this proposal it still has value to be compared to other proposals. And even your negative response to this one is a valid and valueable input in my opinion.
The more valid arguments are made in favour or against a proposal due a discussion the more it gets clear why a given proposal should be pushed or should not be pushed forward.
i think this thread should be locked. there’s nothing constructive coming from it, and everybody here (including op) understands increasing total supply has no chance of surviving.
