Thanks for starting this proposal here!
Yeah, the whole community can help flesh it out. The goal, IMO, is to make each proposal as clear and specific as possible so that the community can be clear about which decision they’re making.
This sounds more like a “community resolution” rather than a protocol change. Resolutions are definitely improvements for Zcash even though they aren’t literal changes to the protocol, because they help everyone know what the community intends for the future of Zcash.
I would argue that the ZIP process already has a space for resolutions like this, but if it doesn’t, I advocate extending the ZIP process to include them.
No need to apologize! This is exactly the kind of contribution I was requesting in my Dev fund proposals & sentiments post.
I have some clarifying questions:
Would this preclude any introduction of proof-of-stake, including hybrid PoW-PoS?
Those kinds of changes alter block rewards such that some go to stakers instead of miners, and I’ve seen different people interpreting that differently.
Does this include transaction fees?
Would this resolution prohibit introducing consensus rules that redirect some or all of transaction fees to anyone other than miners?
Example rule: half of transaction fees go to the block miner and half go to a development fund.
What does “explicit user consent” mean?
Does that mean users can introduce a rule to redistribute mining rewards or fees, as long as they consent? Maybe an example of how “consent” is measured is stake-based voting, where if 60% of all ZEC votes for a change to a mining reward redistribution, then that’s acceptable.
Or does it mean that rules that let users redirect funds “dynamically” are acceptable? For example: users can vote either for or against allocating issued tokens to a dev organization in each block?
Does the “current status quo” of block rewards include only the amounts of block rewards, or does it also include transaction details such as the ability to use t-addresses? For example, would the resolution prohibit disabling t-addresses for mining rewards in the future?