Hi,
Welcome to the forums.
As you stated this is a contentious topic, I hope you can appreciate my frustration with the situation, it is not directed at you.
Having said that though it has reached a point where I need to take a step back for the politics and concentrate on writing the proposals, and my work on RandomX. I will be around to reply to things but less opinion.
You have brought some very good ideas to the table and I really do not want to discourage you.
I would like to pick up on one point in particular in your post/proposal. This is more to clear things up for the newbies and people who might be drawn here by your post.
The way you have framed this argument saddens me. You seem to understand crypto currency on a deep level, so I am not sure why you would phrase that the way you have.
The argument against a continual development fund from block distribution is a strong one:
-
There was a promise that was made by the ECC was that after 4 years they would no longer received 10% of the total mineable supply of zec from block distribution (not block reward, block distribution) and all block distribution will go to miners (this is baked into the protocol like bitcoin) This is not a 20% tax it is a 10% tax frontloaded to be 20% there is a important distinction. Any adjustment to block distribution would be being taxed twice, for supporting the network and processing transactions, i get to pay twice and enrich everyone else.
-
There was a promise that their will be an emission curve and that curve was set in stone (by algo, like bitcoin)
-
There was a promise that the total number of issued zec would be 21 million (fixed cap like bitcoin)
-
There was a promise of finacial privacy
If zcash can break one of the 4 pillars, then how can they be trusted not to break others?
edit: zcash in the sentence above is a reference to the technology and community. not the ECC. I wanted to make this point doubly clear because my post is aimed at more of the newer crowd who might not be as aware of the difference.
-
There was no mention of any form of ability to change these rules via community consesus.
-
There is a mechasim via zip’s but they are not decided upon by community consensus. No one votes on zips. That would be a crazy way to run a company.
-
There is no definition of who or what the community is
I cannot stress enough how there is no mechanism for people to come to a consensus, zec simply isnt designed like that. Could we use the same consensus mechanism for changing emission? how about depreciating z-addresses? These things have to be fundamentals right? So we can never have voting - bitcoin got that right completely by accident. (the 1 cpu 1 vote design is broken)
I am not trying to be negative, but these are real issues that are stopping this from progressing any further. The best we have so far is some really good suggestions from zooko about implementation aspects of possible ideas whatever ideas they maybe
However once you think about any one of the points he has raised with any one of the ‘change things ideas’ then, the downstream impact on the rest of the community (exchanges, mining pools, miners, people who accept for value) is so non trivial things start to melt (like my mind)
As someone who lives in a country that is governed by such a mechanism. It doesn’t work. Look at Brexit and the elimination polls in the house of commons. (not rigged - no outcome)
Then look at the tory pary leadership, (that was rigged). boris was always going to win but Gove was the best candidate against him, Boris out right stated he got his voters to back hunt so he wouldnt have to face Gove in the final race. (Hunt was never going to win gove had an outside chance, similar things happened in every round of that selection process)
With this mechanism, with a zip like “Dont change things” it will lose in the first round, it only benefits one kind of change, it doesn’t benefit changes that do not make changes.
What this boils down to is I did not opt-in [as I was made fully aware of what I did and did not opt-in to in the ASIC war of 2018] to having the rules changed after they are set in motion.
welcome to our world. none of us have. Sonya has started a megathread (that was on my todo list - only just got regular status back to enable me to do it though), that with daira and str4ds ideas on my proposal I think will help everyone be able to use their voice. All voices have to have the same weight. No voting, no polling, only voices.
I am trying to write a zip that says we dont need voting, then people are going to vote on it. How does that work? (I shake my head and go do something else every time i try to type it up)
Please dont flippantly dismiss my opinions by just saying “go play with yec” - I didnt opt-in to yec, i opted into zec. (I saw you already apologised, its just a very hot topic at the moment)
Thanks for your time.