Since ASIC resistance was a commitment made at the start, it must be respected. While I understand that as time goes forward and new information presents itself, there are legitimate reasons to change - “break” - a promise, but doing so requires a significant reason(s), must be unavoidable and there must be a greater good served by not doing what was initially promised, and not changing would work a more significant harm to all concerned. Anyone who’s reasonable will understand new time may demand new changes. However, and this is a big one, since ensuring ASIC resistance should not be too difficult to do, there really is no legitimate reason to allow it. I don’t see enough facts here to condone such a choice if it were made.
It’s also important to recognize that the goals of the foundation are to get as many units of ZCash into as many hands as possible. That takes more and more miners, or, more specifically, more mining power. More mining power should mean faster transactions and the ability to process and confirm more of them. I understand that ASIC mining power does not work a harm directly, or at all, actually. What hurts - or can potentially - is a concentration of mining power into few hands, the real root of the discussion (though it is important to note that the little guy miner who may buy one or several ASICs gets hosed by the big ones who buy many hundreds at a time and can’t do so…an indirect “moaning” issue).
@acityinohio No, in theory, ASIC’s are not bad. It’s the reality that in practice hundreds/thousands of them go to just a handful of peeps and the masses of peeps have to fight over scraps; see my “moaning” issue above. But how can this be prevented? ASIC resistance is a good start, of course. Though assuming it’s inevitable, the lessons we’re learning while watching the GPU market are instructive, and the same song is playing all over again: The big guys get the lion’s share and everyone else fights for scraps…
And does the ZCash Foundation really want to be in the hardware biz? I’m thinking they have a better use of their talent being in the software biz. Consider this:
Perhaps it’s necessary for ZCash to develop some type of supremely easy to use miner that anyone can run on any Win, Ithing, Liniux box or iphone or android device? This way all the Foundation has to do it distribute software, and as someone who’s in the hardware biz, it’s much easier to do 
Remember: the goal of this mining proggy has to be simplicity…I CANNOT stress this enough. Think “point and click…make some money”
Distributing a simple to use miner program which works on any hardware is what’s really needed in my opinion. This ensures mining is decentralized.
I personally would like a simple to use mining program which scales according to what I want and is also an all-in-one wallet to boot. Mining crypto is hard, and no casual user soccer mom can do it easily (apologies to the savvy soccer moms out there). Simplicity encourages adoption and mass adoption works a benefit to all.
(though I don’t think a software solution is really feasible unless everyone using had some degree of luck in finding a randomly generated “bonus” ZEC every so often which is not hashrate dependent).
TL/DR:
1 - There must be a damn good reason to break your word;
2 - ASIC in theory isn’t bad, it’s the implementation and distribution that is;
3 - It’s better for the Foundation to be in the software biz, not the hardware biz;
4 - An easy to use ZCash miner is what’s needed
Thx for reading if you did!
