Grant winners announcement!


#1

Oodles of details: https://z.cash.foundation/blog/q2-grant-winners/

It’s a long post so I’m not going to copy-paste the whole thing here. Click through and read all about it. I’m so happy to be sharing this with you!


#2

I personally would as well like to see the details of the NOT approved grants and the reasons for it …
Just basic curiousity :grinning:


#3

#4

I noticed the Prog POW was forwarded by Solar Designer.

The same Solar Designer that said, those parameters are weak before the coin launched - yet no one acted on the information.

ASICS have been around in one way or another for a year now.

Why was/is this a problem after ASIC’s were made. Why hasn’t this been something that the custodians of the protocol (foundation) only decided to act after massive community out cry. I think you will have a very hard time getting those gpu miners back next year.

Or even before that. Why wasn’t solar;s advice followed up on? too busy printing magic internet money?

It was a real shame that so many people warned of the destructiveness of ASIC’s yet the people who were meant to be “knowledgeable” (because they sponsored the project early on) were not actually that bright. Their greed outshone their intellect. But all least they have all been paid off, even if they took zcash down with their profits. (I am not talking about dairia , str4d, or the dev team in general)

Just out of interest, seeing as Gavin is a paid advisor, what was his advice on ASIC resistance?

Good luck though.

Move or delete this post, im beyond caring.


#5

As noted in the post, there is no consensus on whether pursuing ASIC resistance is even a good idea.


#6

I wonder why some think pursuing ASIC resistance is not a good idea? Are reasons behind it technical or political ?


#7

Hi Sonya,

Thanks for the response. I currently feel very frustrated with the whole mining situation for various reasons. Please do not think I am directly questioning you in this post. Whilst I would love your input I am in no way saying this is anything you were involved in. You are a credit to the community and if you feel my post oversteps the mark I will retract it.

This is true, but it is side stepping my original point. My point was based around they should already know they answer. So why is it now that the foundation has done these things? as custodians I would expect them to pre-emptively be thinking about this and to have various contingency plans. My post was not about if asic resistance is a good idea or not. It was why don’t they already know, and why have they not allocated resources to working this out. (except what feels like lipservice in solar designers report)

There might not be consensus now, however back in the early days ASIC resistance was a significant selling point of zcash. Solar Designer’s report shows this. Just the act of commissioning it, then it seems everything was largely forgotten/ignored until ASICs came out. Then the issue was thought about for a long time then, somewhat addressed. (but still not fully. for example, why is it okay to brick gen1 asics but not gen2?)

Im not trying to be argumentative, I just can’t follow the logic. It feels (yes feels, how I subjectively feel about this) like it was used as a selling point to get gpu miners interested then, when asics came out - no prior research except Solar Designers report had been done. It blindsided the dev team and caused major issues within the community.

Does the foundation or even zco have people who are able to do risk analysis and risk management? If they do why has this turned into such a fiasco. Who is directly responsible for risk assessments of the protocol? Are they currently doing it? do you have the various scenarios mapped out? These questions shouldn’t feel like they are rhetorical, but they do.

Sorry for droning on.


#8

No worries, I don’t think you’re overstepping. I don’t have any further input, though, since I’m personally agnostic on GPUs versus ASICs and arrived in the community midway through the controversy.