I am fine either way now since I have both. I will ROI before a parameter change could be done since it was pushed back to April. I will be moving my GPU’s to ETH within the next 2 months dependent upon difficulty increases.
I am still concerned with the health of the Zcash network and consolidation by 1 company however, which could prevent future beneficial upgrades. For that reason I think they should find a way for people worldwide to mine profitably and that includes GPU’s.
I don’t see a problem here to understand, some (rare) miners prefer a healthy project over some small investement ROI. Not sure how many Z9mini the others have, but me has just 1, no big deal at all.
Not everybody is willing to sacrifice a good project for a small personal profit. I prefer zcash to be healthy and raise in price, that will profit me more with my ZEC holdings than some fast bucks with a Z9, but than again, i’am for POS by now anyway and not for wasting resources for some questionable algo changes/switches/forks/whatever.
You make some good points. Where I disagree with you is in the “forcing miners to only mine ZCash”. I think with a new algorithm, the best way to approach this is to give incentive to consistently mine ZCash. Even those with ASICS have a choice to move to another equihash coin if ZEC become less profitable. ASIC usage does not mean ultimate loyalty. Giving all miners incentive to stick with ZEC and not chase profits I believe is the best way to address the concerns you’ve made in past posts about network stability/security.
As for being ASIC friendly I entirely agree. For me, the issue is more about leveling the playing field so that the mining network can include as many people as possible. This will bring the project much closer to the ultimate goal of adoption as day to day currency. I won’t repeat the benefits of moving from a PoW to a PoS again as its been stated several times in other posts, but I still feel this is the best way to do this.
Finally I agree, whatever changes are made need to work for as long as possible for ZCash to be successful. Constantly changing algorithms every 6 months is unfeasible and takes away valuable development time. I think there’s a happy middle here that benefits all stakeholders, but its going to require some work to find it. Is the ZCash development team up to the challenge? Stay tuned, we’ll see.
When miners switch to another coin for profitability reasons they leave Zcash less secure. This actually hurts the Zcash price. When miners are squeezed coins become more rare and the value of them will increase as a result. It’s basic supply/demand economics. If miners can switch coins there is less Zcash demand, difficulty decreases, coins are easier to get and the price stays flat or drops.
Further, a lower price decreases adoption when Zcash should be gaining in adoption relative to other competing cryptocurrencies like Monero.
You do not understand the fundamental ideals of cryptocurrency. Forcing people to do what you want is exactly the situation cryptocurrency was designed to fight in the first place.
There will only be a handful of successful cryptocurrencies in the end. If you want people to mine your crypto then get them to commit on principal, get them to commit on the merit and success of the coin. Forcing to mine your crypto is just more of the old financial system that crypto WILL eventually replace.
This is the situation as it was the whole time, and we had a Zec Price of $ 800.
So there is in no way a relation between price and different miners.
In my opinion, Asic miners will sell all to make Roi, a lot of GPU miners are Hodlers, Hodlers make a coin rare, cause they are here, but not for sale, that makes them rare.
And then the point, made by some people before, and there is the real power of the coin in my opinion, mouth to mouth talk.
A lot of my friends mined Zcash because I did, they all started with their game pc’s and began mining.
Some have bigger rigs then I have now, some stopped. But it was through that friends group who started mining , that even the ladies in our group can name more Cryptho then Bitcoin alone.
If I had shown them an Asic, I still could have telll them every birthday about a coin named Zcash.
You need a community, and that should be a fixed 1, Miners, Investors ( can make it big, can lose everything, think about that too fellow miners, there are going to be more losers ) tech people, marketeers. All have different views, here should come some kind of consensus, instead of all fighting for our own.
Look at Electronium ( I love this coin, they fucked up everything, the ICO, the mobile miner, the Fork … )
But 1 bad word on Bitcointalk on Electronium and the believers come out. That I miss in Zcash
And 1 more thing, and this is a little personal Root, because I made an account this year, doesn’t mean I am not involved for a longer time. Believe me, I am in right after the Genesis block, I have a lot to thank Zcash for, what Zcash gave me, I gave back by keep on mining Zcash, although there were better alternatives.
I Icould buy several Asics, I don’t want them, If that means no longer Zcash mining, to bad, it realy hurts me, because I have love for Zcash. If it means no longer mining with GPU in the whole Cryptho space ?
Then I had a nice hobby since mining bitcoin and I will move on.
Still I wonder why the Algo isn’t switching 1 time to 144.5 just to see what happens.
@ZC93 That’s exactly what I wanted to say to @root. Consent is an extremely important part of cryptocurrency from an idealistic/social point of view.
Cryptocurrency has been all about financial freedom, freely transacting, privacy and giving the middle finger to fiat banking systems that haven’t included or worked for ALL people for a very long time. At its core, its about “consent” “independence” and “freedom”. Its not about making miners “slaves” to the some coin’s mining network. How’s that any different than the broken fiat financial systems that we are all forced to use today? Aren’t we all slaves already? If you want to have a successful coin that’s fully adopted, there has to be some “incentive” for miners to “consent” to mining your coin, it cannot be “forced”. Whether that be cutting edge new technology, a high market value, or some other reason, its the coin creator’s responsibility to earn the miner’s consent and thus their loyalty.
I’m tired of hearing you and others talk about “forcing miners”, how do you think that’s going to work out? Whether that’s forcing miners to upgrade to an ASIC or forcing them to go GPU mine another coins, you seem to be OK with generally forcing folks to comply with your ideas/vision or showing them the door. In my opinion, its the ZCash Company’s responsibility and frankly opportunity to find a solution that includes ALL people who’d like to be involved with ZCash as this drives towards the ultimate goal of complete adoption as an actual currency. It’s that “My way or the highway” viewpoint and way of handling things that has pissed off a majority of GPU miners who have walked away from the ZCash the last month and we’ve seen how that has made the market value of ZEC crumble. A community solution is crucial to the well being of ZCash.
The approach should be “We are all in this together” as that sort of direction is going to take ZCash much much further than forcing, giving ultimatums, and generally showing a lack of respect and appreciation for those who participate in mining. It doesn’t matter if you want to run an ASIC, FPGA, GPU, CPU, mobile phone, Rasberry PI etc. it’d be in ZCash’s best interest to find a way to include everyone and anyone in the community if they choose to give their consent. This is how you grow a cryptocurrency, build a strong community and eventually achieve complete adoption.
Cryptocurrencies allow people the freedom to be their own bank, hold their own assets and Zcash allows that to happen privately. That is different from the economics and game theory behind mining.
When miners can switch coins based on profitability, it stifles the growth of the one they are switching from.
It’s simple: when miners switch, the Zcash price stagnates because of reduced demand. This is standard supply/demand economics.
get them to commit on principal
The fundaments of Zcash that allow for private and verifiable transactions with zero-knowledge proofs hasn’t changed. The only thing that has changed is that some miners have felt displaced by newer, more efficient mining hardware.
yeah it is private at least till the next secret vote …and we dont feel displaced we feel betrayed…stabbed in the back by coin that we invested our time and trust after the coin grove big enough we where dumped like used toilet paper…it is not about efficient mining equipment since ASICs are older than ZEC it is about pure money hunger and greed
On the surface, I can’t even see the logic behind your argument.
It is true that when miners switch coins for profits, it can result in erratic block times. However, this has never been a problem for Zcash, which has always had very consistent block times. (The 2-hour SMA would almost always be within 240 and 260 seconds when I was observing the chain for over a year.) The coins that need to worry about multipools are those with small overall block rewards and longer target block times, like BTG or Electroneum.
I also don’t see how multipools “reduce demand” or “stifles the growth.” I don’t see the slightest connection here.
And how is that working ? Let’s take crypto to the real world and Zcash is bread. Baker’s are baking bread, and then some stop and start selling eggs. So the price goes down ? It goes up. In case of mining Zcash, I know you understand that although the hashrate goes up, the amount of Zcash will be the same. Only how much gets who is chancing. How will that change the price ? Like I said before, in my opinion asic miners will sell their Zcash right away to roi, a lot for sale, a low price. That will be the scenario for the first time to come
Meanwhile, after I’ve started my rant agains ASIC, the trues is that ZEC isn’t profitable enough (in terms of getting the most out of it) even for ASIC… could it be as we thought… is the community going away ?
Even with an ASIC there are at least 9 more profitable Equihash coins now…
Also I have hold my word and FORKED … Why ? I am still sort of pissed that my ASIC resistant coins isn’t anymore… Whatever I can live with it. I still mine with 26/1000th of my GPU’s ZEC and I have ordered some A9 from which I will point 1 or 2 to ZEC as well.
I don’t see how a drop in difficulty causes lower demand.
Demand for Zcash right now is mostly from investors who believe it will appreciate. In the future, demand might come from individuals who want to conduct private transactions.
Now, you could argue that high demand will increase difficulty by increasing the exchange price and encouraging more people to mine Zcash. That is a reasonable argument. However, you seem to be reversing cause and effect.
I’am not sure, but maybe he meant that you can mine on a multipool other coins but get paid in Zcash for example. Many users on multi-auto pools are doing just that, mining easier difficult coins but choose as a payout a coin they do not mine.
For example on miningpoolhub it’s no problem to mine everything and get paid/autochanged to Zcash.
As said, not sure if root had this in mind …
A drop in difficulty is literally less demand for Zcash. It’s direct. When less miners mine Zcash, it becomes easier to get for those that are still mining it because of the reduced difficulty. If something is easier to get, it is less rare. When items are more plentiful, it is said that they have a greater supply and as a result they cost less. I highly suggest you actually read the supply/demand wikipedia link.
@jamest I totally agree with you, difficulty has nothing to do with the supply or value of ZCash. Everything @root has said applies to an actual product or service and not a parameter in some algorithm. Difficulty is simply a mechanism to issue coins at the same rate regardless of the network hash rate and the number of miners participating. The actual exchange markets dictate a coin’s value, nothing else. Saying that difficulty has anything to do with the value of ZEC is simply an unfounded assertion.