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.
2 Likes
don’t these proposals being discussed in these threads to
- reduce miners share and
- 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.
3 Likes
It’s not about a blessing, it’s about active participation here in the forum.
Using Zooko as an example, we all know his ideology is libertarian, which is a free-free-free market sort of belief system.
So what is his opinion about why ZEC transaction fees are not market based (instead they are absolute-defined).
There are many brilliant thinkers in ZF and ECC, but it feels rare that they interact with the forum community.
I’m not appealing for blessings, I’m appealing for open and common exchanges of ideas.
1 Like
it’s also because things like the 21m cap is not carved in stone, no one can build on top of zcash blockchain because their is no way to recover development costs outside of grants. this is a defacto centralized project. we don’t want their blessing, we want their commitment to not change 21m cap. it’s very clear without a fee structure the 21m cap has to increase. how else do developers get paid? the issuance/burn solution is too risky. it’s a slippery slope that like results in very significant issuance.
the libertarian views would be great! eliminate the middlemen.
mandatory block rewards is not libertarian, it’s socialist or communist. it creates middlemen not decentralized development. It creates a very risky structure where people not experts in capital allocation are controlling capital. That creates waste and inefficiency. Blockchain is supposed to make things more efficient.
we need to protect
- miners
2 developers - zec holders
and create products people want to use (and pay for) not just the tech.
1 Like
Really? Are we going to talk about that in this thread as well…?
2 Likes
seems like you would get more tired about people asking for money than those trying to create a coin that has value. 95%+ of people here are those who simply want money. they want to get money for grants regardless of the success adding value or not. correct me if i’m wrong but we are supposed to be trying to create money that people use where privacy is a common goal. privacey is one of many important pieces. and creating money with value and trust is not what’s happening. money requires much more than privacy alone
Could we make this an item at the next arborist call?
Using my point about Ethereum Classic and their successful finality solution, did ECC evaluate their software to determine it’s portability to Zcash?
If they did not, why?
Why should we all be reinventing a wheel that already exists?
I don’t recall much, if any, open debate about finality. It seems like the TFL was a preordained initiative to keep the research teams occupied for a year or two.
But if there already exists a deployed and tested solution, why not take the practical route of porting their solution to Zcash?
Congrats, you’ve graduated to my ‘Ignore List’
This privacy of zcash is designed to be safe even if only one validator existed and it was being watched by the us government. bob and alice can still send z2z with full confidence
The big risk/annoyance for service providers is in reorgs. Any service that indexs transactions and nonces in a seperate db has a big problem with roll backs. For ETC, mess makes it economically unlikely a roll back of greater than x blocks will not happen (on top on nakomoto consensus). with each block it becomes exponentially harder to generate enough difficulty vs linearly hard. Pirl used pirlguard which does the same thing with a fixed block number limiting rollback length.
Zcash has a proposal for a trailing finality layer that would give finality to blocks and limit reorgs. That would be the quickest route to safety
1 Like