I’d be curious what the community is thinking about this.
Ideally, we could sort of replicate the Polkadot model, where we would have an equivalent to their Kusama network. Now, instead of being a “canary” network, it would be a “legacy” network, where security wouldn’t be optimal but at least it gives a chance to people waking up after 10 years from a coma to access their funds. That, and people deciding to cryo-preserve may eventually also be important one day. Ok, I see you’re still not taking those scenarios seriously. Try people sent in jail for years, sometimes/often unfairly; they should also lose their funds? Now, on this “legacy” network, funds would be more susceptible to being hacked given the code of the pools would be old. We could have a 20% fee to funds ending up on this “legacy” network, which could be used to hire resources that would be dedicated in keeping this network as secure as possible. Fair compromise as I see it.
Short from being able to preserve the funds, the potential of destroying the funds after a delay seem quite rough. The day we decide to go in this direction, we should give at least 5 years before any deletion takes place, and that countdown would be starting only when communications channels are actively making this front and center (website, apps, etc). The downside is clear, but at least we have the upside of lowering the supply when tokens get destroyed.
Recycling tokens  is, to me, a ridiculous idea. Recycle where? To fund something? So we’d fund that something with the hope that people / their families would lose their store of value? Hard pass! I’d definitely prefer an elegant, small but constant increase of the supply cap, past 21M, if say we want to keep having a budget to maintain the network over centuries, for example.
The above tech is wild and interesting and probably outside the budget of most folks
What about an option, with community support, to request a grant to make up the difference in fees? This way any outliers that probably shouldn’t be taxed can find relief from the project. I think, like time, moving forward is good and I like that its different from the set-in-stone approach from Bitcoin. I like to think of it in terms of discrete vs continuous systems as well. The jump past discrete has important social issues that matter.
From a practical stand point, what is the difference between destroying coins and losing coins from some hack on an old code base?
What about staking rewards where a %, community decided, is moved into a community fund, a dev fund, and staking rewards where these funds would live in the newest ocean of tech?
Auto-migrate, afaik requires your wallet to be online. I’m not sure how you see this happening, safely, in a Bolivian jail.
Right but we’re not so much talking about CS here, but money, the store-of-value bit of money.
All-in-all, part of what is going to give value to Zcash, is people trusting that they can keep their wealth on the network. I don’t want to state the obvious but I guess I must: implement this and much fewer people will dare to store their wealth in ZEC. We can hate on whales all we want, at the end of the day we benefit from their being with us. What are they going to do? They’ll Stablecoin → ZEC → MNR/BTC and keep it there until they need it, at which point they’ll reverse BTC/MNR->ZEC->Stablecoin.
For the record Im not for/against anything at this point, I’m simply having fun with the thought exercise.
I’m not an expert here, but, the moment it comes online it would need to migrate for use. Whether this actually would work, not sure.
I’m not sure what you mean with MNR but are you suggesting whales will keep funds in BTC until ready? Isn’t that using ZEC as a proxy which, I believe, is not what experts have said should be done. Rather, keep them in the shielded pool at rest
Suggesting the code in github is not CS is kind of funny but I see you’re very focused on the money aspect.
Right, but from the Nate Wilcox talk referenced in my initial post, the idea would be more like 2 years deadline. What if you get 5 years? 10? Fact is if you need to put your funds in a bank so they are not destroyed, at that point you know your project has failed, in ridiculous fashion.
Right, absolutely it is what should be done. But it only works if we can count of Zcash being store-of-value, not just means-of-exchange.
Well, clearly Zcash is heavy on CS. This discussion however is not really touching this aspect. We’re clearly more in the economics / game theory area.
I’ve used the “supposedly forever” wording on purpose. I vaguely remember the bug mentioned in Zooko’s post and I doubt Bitcoin will last centuries without fundamental changes. The idea remains that on one end of the spectrum you have “as little changes as possible” and on the other end “wild west nerd blockchain where nobody is going to keep their wealth”.
I’m willing to test this theory until it doesn’t work. Barely anyone cares about privacy, this is the real reason the price is low, imho. Most savvy users who understand this are building heavy zcash portfolios. I feel like we are more aligned than it seems
Hold up, who’s putting funds into a bank? Are you equating a smart contract with a bank?
Kinda true. I do have to force a laugh when Nate is thinking of destroying my tokens if I nap too long.
I think so. I hope so. Truth is if you end up in a bolivian jail, you’ll be fully aligned with my view as well.
I don’t know, I mean my bank can do some shady s*** sometimes, but it never threatened to distribute my cash to who knows who in case I don’t use it within two years. So yeah I’ll keep my saving in my bank if it’s safer than in ZEC, as I presume anyone else would under the same situation.
What I’m imagining is not sending your money to someone else, it would be fully automated, secured by ZKPs. I mean you either trust the tech or you dont. If Im going to get screwed, id rather the risk be my mistake and not some bankers. Do you use full nodes or is that something you dont trust as well? Very interesting perspective.
The idea that I could loss all my money from risk I take on is powerful and I’m thankful I even have the choice tbh.
Sorry, what? Sure I use full-nodes. I’m running a Zebra node as we speak. It’s not my point though. You need to understand that if you end up in jail in most countries, all your assets get seized ok? Today I can memorize a passphrase and not have it seized. Tomorrow with Zcash, maybe we can’t trust that. Consequences? Nobody is going to use ZEC as store of value. If you don’t care about the ZEC price, then it’s all fine.
edit: actually seized or not seized is not even necessary the problem. The fact that from a jail you are unlikely to have access to your wallet will prevent you from being able to upgrade your tokens to the latest pool is the main trouble.
Assuming you are released, and allowed to join the internet, maybe you’d have a chance though.
If , insert subset of citizens, are thrown in jail unjustly, we have bigger issues to deal with. Furthermore, having your money in a bank doesn’t, to me, feel any safer. Who cares how much “Money” you have if you cant actually spend it Lets just assume everyone has , symbolic to zcash itself.
retiring the transparent pool would be awesome because it would make zcash into an unequivocal privacy network. if it becomes default for all zcash to be private that would cause use of the memo field to go viral also. win-win scenario for me
Ok I’m really trying to get you to think wider here.
Right, let’s also forget about the Ukrainian warriors that get captured indefinitely in Russia. Political prisoners? Who cares are well! Let’s actually not care about anyone that actually would benefit greatly from what Zcash has to offer.
I think we agree on some things and disagree on others, thanks for the chat!
Ok looks like I have misunderstood what you said earlier, sorry. But so yes we do have plenty of political prisoners around the world. And those are people who would get their tokens destroyed. Exactly those we should be here to protect, imho.
Technically I think you need to be able to sign transactions with a private key. Which implies that only the token holder is able to set that up. A token user in jail, to use that simple example, would like have no access to any of their device, which is the trouble here. But you can also use the example of someone in a coma, how fair is it to wake up 5 years later and have your tokens cancelled?
If there would be a way to automate this at the protocol level then sure, but I think the debate here exists because it doesn’t appear to be possible.