Mining issue. Serious

Partially true, but most of the blocks will be < 51%

Noticed that Kraken wants 150 confirmations for ZEC deposits - sucks.


Can you explain exactly what that means? Are you saying we cannot transfer ZEC to a Kraken account without significant difficulty?

yep - takes just over three hours (approx)

That’s unfortunate.

@Beth and I have been working with Coinbase and various mining pools to try and resolve this issue. Here’s where we currently stand:

  • We spoke with ViaBTC, and unfortunately they say there’s not a lot they can do because they don’t run Zcash miners themselves and don’t want to tell their clients to move to other pools because it might negatively impact their revenues.

  • We have also been reaching out to other mining pools to determine how to address and resolve this issue. So far, in addition to ViaBTC, we have spoken to Antpool, Bitmain, F2Pool, and Luxor Mining Pool.

  • One idea that has come out of these conversations is doing AMAs on Twitter Spaces with mining pools like Antpool and F2Pool to promote Zcash. Bitmain is open to a Twitter Spaces event with Antpool where they will give away some free Zcash miners. These AMAs will happen in late October and early November.

  • Another option is to do a promotion with a mining pool where they’d offer 0% fee for mining Zcash for a month to attract new users, and then put in a grant to ZCG for $5k-$10k to cover those costs. Representatives from the mining pools say in their experience the miners are pretty sticky after the promotion ends, so long as mining Zcash is profitable.

  • ZCG has some apprehensions about this option, primarily because it is not clear the miners will actually stick to mining Zcash after the promotion ends, and it may not be worth the cost. ZCG is currently discussing this option; however, if it is further explored, it will happen after the initial AMAs take place.

  • I have also messaged @artkor who knows some of the miners in Russia to see what mining pool they use, and if it is ViaBTC, to encourage them to shift to another pool.

  • We’ve also asked Bitmain if they have an incentive program where they’ll subsidize the upfront costs of miners for a share in future profits. A new entrant would need to invest approximately $3 million to move 5% of hashrate.

This is definitely an urgent matter, and we’re doing all we can to try to resolve it. Please let us know if there are any other options we should explore.



How about promoting pools on the ‘official channels’ that have 30% or less of the hash? Shouldn’t be too hard to automate that.

I doubt it’d move the needle much 'cos ZEC miners are mega-operations rather than home enthusiasts, but it wouldn’t hurt to try.

(official channels: a daily tweet, a page somewhere main website, a daily bot post on discord & telegram)


Think this issue is overblown. Just adjust your expectations. If it takes an extra 2 hours, or even 24 hours, so be it. We should be moving coins out of exchanges, not in :smiley: Moving to POS will fix this of course. :zebra:

1 Like

Its sand in the gears & annoying - or if you want to be paranoid an indication of the trust exchanges have in zec txns.


I just assume CEX’s will not allow deposits in the future, so use it while you can. Government doing things they say. P2P currencies need to be with people anyway. Good use case for GPU miner coins like Ycash and Vertcoin.

I’m still hoping someone can explain to me like I’m 5 why we can’t switch up the mining algorithm and bring back memory-hard hobby mining and blow ASICs off the network… I guess people would still use pools anyways though …

All funds towards mining and hoarding? :sweat_smile:

Can someone breakdown (like I’m 5 ofc) what ZF/ECC deploying resources to mine would look like? Just as a thought experiment. What is the magnitude of the mining footprint of the network? What is the comparable magnitude of “the dev fund orgs”?

I think there could be some interesting ideas on how the network and the ZEC token could be supported in different ways.

I’d pay 10 ZEC for a well researched summary of the economics of the entire ecosystem - the orgs, the miners, the large grants… The overall Zcash experiment should be a great source of data and inference. Thanks in advance!


Maybe a ZF or ECC pool where the ‘fee’ goes to ‘dev fund’ ? A pool is just a server, doesn’t need much.

It could also be a pool that ‘doesnt mine spam’ - although wouldn’t make much difference as other pools could.


Big miners tend to use their own pool, it’s a bit more efficient & they’re all about that.

It’s also against the push to POS so doubt there’s much interest.

Proof of Stake won’t be happening for a few years, so I think this hashrate centralization problem needs to be taken seriously because of how many risks it elevates. In general this is a sticky PR problem that makes Zcash look unprepared and incapable of actually delivering on its ideals about being decentralized & secure. Best of luck to the teams working on mitigation!

1 Like

For long periods, Satoshi controlled 100% of the hash power.

In July 2014, the mining pool briefly exceeded the 51% threshold [1].

[1] - Wikipedia


We can. The hard part is having a hash algorithm that does hold up (given enough time everything can be done in ASIC). But apparently the old Ethereum and the Monero algorithms are holding up. Someone just needs to propose it and the community has to support it.


Ethereum Classic also has a solution that has successfully prevented what used to be common 51% attacks.

1 Like

The cost of a major exchange getting antsy and putting further restrictions on, or even delisting, Zcash is much greater than 5-10k. I’d be supportive of testing this solution. Even if it completely fails, we’ll have an answer as to whether it is viable. And if it works, it would be a nice short-term solution to this problem.


don’t these proposals being discussed in these threads to

  1. reduce miners share and
  2. increase 21m cap

undermine everything we are working towards? It likely scares both minders and buyers of Zec. A solid statement from leadership stating their commitment to support miners and maintain the 21 cap while transition to a fee based system and increasing currency options, such as privacey stable coins and others, would go a long way towards building trust. Silence by leadership erodes the trust for people who believe in zec as a store of value as opposed to a tool to create tech for other projects.

1 Like

I agree here with David and Jason. The risks are severe, particularly considering the worst case, a Coinbase delisting which would probably cause Zcash to lose another $10.00 per coin in value ($150,000,000 of market capitalization). This ecosystem is already running with the tanks near empty, so I believe that spending $5,000-10,000 of ZCG funds on an attempted mitigation against PoW hashrate centralization would be very wise.

As Jgx mentions time and again, there is also a huge PR challenge against Zcash now. The too often radio silent leadership. Part of the equation to reach success involves the creation and maintenance of Leadership & Community trust. Over long periods of time, there have been many strong recommendations raised by community members here in the forum, yet they appear to be entirely ignored by ECC or ZF leadership. I’m talking firstly about the Fee Market proposal, but also about the pros-cons of changing the 21m supply cap, and about the various ZSA/ stablecoin topics.

1 Like

I don’t understand why people say the Zcash ecosystem is too centralized but want ECC’s or ZF’s blessing before doing anything? If someone has a proposal for changing the fee structure or whatever, write a draft ZIP and submit it.