Proposal about distribution


#1

In my opinion, it's better to have an IPO/ICO rather than retain 10% pre-mined coins, here is my reasons:
1. It will get more guys into it through an IPO/ICO rather than only miners
2. It will save energy.
3. There is no mining-centralization problem like Bitcoin.
4. Miners are road-block of future scalability, . Bitcoin has found itself in a woeful predicament.

Anyway I will follow up this coin since it's very promising.


#2

Yep, IPO on 100% of the currency, with the goal of eventually selling them all.

What do you mean with "4"? Z.cash would still need miners, and would still need a method of funding them, unless they choose to go the "PoS" route. Miners are also not a roadblock for scalability. Decentralization is the roadblock to scalability. A good number of miners, users, and developers are all very concerned about scaling beyond the capabilities of the decentralized network... And z.cash is going to have the same issue to contend with.


#3

I really hope that a better solution can be found. There is an interesting discussion of this on the zcash reddit by the way. I made a couple points and Zooko responded.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Zcash/comments/441wxm/closed_investor_cycle_wth/

I just would like to say that I really respect the openness and candor that Zooko has shown so far. It seems that this really is an honest difference of opinions and philosophies.

That having been said, I haven't been convinced by Zooko's arguments so far. If it came down to it (and I would prefer that it didn't), I guess I would be one of the people supporting a fork to system that didn't give such a great deal to early investors in a closed funding round.


#4

I added my point there just now which is critically important and is being ignored by Zooko.


#5

So what do you think of increasing Bitcoin block size, there are too many arguments but so far it's not set yet.


#6

I believe that the whole debate is trying to engineer what should be a market based solution.
We already know everything we need to know to fix problems concerning the Calculation Problem and the Tragedy of the Commons.
Either the resources in question need to have clear owners or the the resource needs to be not scarce.
So what about Block Size?
Well, either the block size needs to be owned by an entrepreneur or there must be an infinite block space available.
Any other solution creates an arbitrary floor or ceiling which will inevitably mean surplus or shortage, except only coincidentally.
So we have our choices.

1.) The block size will be managed and owned by an entrepreneur.

2.) someone needs to invent a way to make block space not scarce, which is intuitively impossible.

3.) Make some non-market based decision about the block size, which will be consistently incorrect over time.

2 is the only way to solve the problem without giving up decentralised control of the currency, which is why things like Segregated Witness, and the Lightning Network are so great, but ultimately I doubt enough technology like this will ne invented to make block space not scarce.

3 has always been outcompeted by 1.

So that leaves us with our answer. Ultimately the block size will be decided by entrepreneurs via competing configurations in the market.

So try to pick a block size that is bigger than your competition, and provide it at a better price.

Unfortunately, I believe that will mean cryptocurrencies will end up being highly centralised. The good news is that free markets themselves are decentralised.


#7

No offense intended, but frankly your conceptualization appears to lack the study I have put into this issue.

Infinite block size sends block reward to 0, so then in profitable proof-of-work mining the miners must form an oligarghy to create some revenue by limiting the block size. I covered the details.


#8

Hey, I am not totally ignoring comments, and thank you for the encouragement and support. There is a lot more to come, both new technology releases and more discussions about how to build the ecosystem. Thank you for your positive and cooperative contributions, and stay tuned!


#9

Dear Shelby3: Please don't negatively describe or characterize other people's contributions. This is the second time I've asked you this, and after this I'm just going to delete/hide any posts of yours that catch my eye that have that quality to them. If you want a forum where you're free to say whatever you like about other people, I'm sure there are plenty out there! Maybe https://forum.bitcoin.com/ would be a good one?

Sincerely,

Zooko