1. The community should not discriminate against or overly scrutinize newcomers. The continuous influx of fresh voices is what drives true prosperity and growth within the ZEC ecosystem.
2. The core of ZEC is “Bitcoin with privacy,” not a privacy coin. Otherwise, why would its initial mechanism be identical to Bitcoin’s? Abandoning mining is a negation of the original intention.
3.No matter whether it’s cryptography or mathematics, they must all serve macroeconomics. Because a token is a social experiment whose purpose is to achieve financial equality, enable more people to use it, and ultimately realize higher value. At the end of the day, it is an economic behavior, or rather, a social behavior, while everything else is merely a tool to achieve these goals. When discussing community governance, we must not get the two mixed up.
4.The sociological goal of ZEC should be: long-term existence and widespread, easy usability. Its economic goal should be: high value. Its characteristic is optional privacy. Therefore, privacy cannot be the soul of ZEC; privacy is merely a feature of ZEC. This distinction must be fully affirmed.
5.In the near future, all current financial activities on the blockchain will perish, with only one type of token surviving as an exception: the energy coin. This is because only energy coins are created through minting; they are not code that can be endlessly replicated, altered, and innovated at zero cost. Instead, they are physical entities forged by mining farms with massive reset costs, making them tangible assets just like gold.
6.Currently, the ratio of code coins to energy coins on the blockchain exceeds 1 to 10,000, and it will only become greater in the near future. Why is this the case? Because energy coins are extremely difficult to create, requiring incomparable and immense time costs as well as reset costs. Creating a code coin becomes more advanced and cheaper by the day, whereas creating an energy coin carries increasingly higher reset costs and a lower probability of success day by day.
7.If ZEC abandons the PoW mechanism, it will self-destruct its core value. To abandon the hard-earned moat of reset costs and mining network effects—effectively crippling oneself—would reduce ZEC to a meme coin that can be infinitely replicated. Someone might say: “My privacy features are powerful.” Remember, privacy is merely a feature; on coin-launch platforms, every single meme coin claims to have all sorts of powerful features! A ZEC that abandons the PoW mechanism will throw itself into the competition against a massive sea of homogenized code coins, and ultimately perish.
8.Although PoW has its various flaws, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater.And the key to success lies in doing hard (different) and right things.
9.The arguments in my previous post are also built on the premise of not changing PoW. Without this premise, any further discussion is completely pointless.
10.High costs are an inherent issue of PoW, but the current reorg limit has effectively mitigated 51% attacks. The focus of my previous post is: under the premise of Zcash’s 21-million hard cap, how to transition transaction fees from fluctuating in tandem with ZEC’s price pulses to being smoothly pegged against network-wide costs. These views may not necessarily be correct, but I am putting this direction out there to see if it might be of any help.
11.My views may not necessarily be correct, and I am putting them out there for everyone to discuss. Additionally, as English is not my native language, AI was used to assist with the translation, but the core viewpoints belong exclusively to the author.
One last thing: do not be intimidated by Bitcoin’s might—Yahoo, Nokia, and Motorola were mighty too.