Releasing mining rewards over 50 weeks


#1

Part of the changes planned for the Blossom network upgrade is timelocking mining rewards (for the new/second PoW algorithm only) so that they are released over the course of 50 weeks.

We’re interested in hearing your thoughts on what impact this change could have, especially if you currently mine Zcash (or have mined Zcash in the past, or are thinking of mining Zcash).

How would timelocking mining rewards affect your decision on whether to mine Zcash or not? Would it make you more or less likely to mine Zcash? Do you think it will have the desired effect of creating an economic incentive for miners to protect the Zcash network, and more closely align miners’ interests with those of Zcash users?

You can also post your feedback on the relevant Github ticket.

Edit: I corrected the thread title to correct the number of weeks (I’d originally typed 52; the proposal is actually 50 weeks).


Price Speculation
#2

4000 blocks is aprox. 10000 minutes which is 166 Hours or close to 7 days.

So a miner gets to wait 7 days before he receives his award. I dont see this as a big deal, as long as pools are honest and fair. I think this is good as it would prevent coin and pool hopping.


#3

No.

The proposal is that the mining reward be split into 50 tranches, each of which gets unlocked at 4000-block intervals.

For example, if the mining reward is 10 ZEC, the miner will receive 0.2 ZEC straight away, then another 0.2 ZEC every ~week for 50 weeks.


#4

Oh I didnt understand it then. Well then I would say this would increase centralization of mining. Miners would barely receive any rewards to pay their electricity bills, and only ones to keep mining would be those with deep pockets.

This would however seemingly decrease inflation of Zcash ( as the rewards for mining would be delayed). This could lead to increase of value of Zcash due to lower supply.


#5

So you are proposing that if I was a miner, I can mine coins, HOWEVER I cant use or spend the full amout of MY coins for 50 weeks?

I know you are trying to help with the miners dumping coins, but this is a terrible idea. Locking peoples coins for ANY reason is a terrible idea. You are removing freedoms that we currently have. If you guys didnt want coins dumped onto the market by miners, you should of taken a more ANTI-ASIC stance.

Everyone was saying, the ASICs are going to be dumping the coins hoping to ROI before they stop making money. This was expected. The proposed “fix” of locking miners coins seems like a silly way to combat ASICs.

GPUs mined this coin for almost 2 years, we never had a dumping problem. ASICs have been mining for 6 months, and now Zcash are already talking about plans to reduce the freedom you have with your coins because of ASICs…I wonder why people were so against them.


#6

I quit mining when GPUs were pushed off the network. However, IF it was still GPU mineable, and knowing my coins would be locked for upto 50 weeks. I would probly not mine Zcash unless it was MUCH more profitable. “Its my money, and I want it now” as the commercial would say…

Having my crypto locked and not available for use kinda defeats the purpose of crypto.

I dont care what people say, people that bought ASICs didnt buy them to “secure the network”, they bought them to profit PERIOD. Anyone that says otherwise is lying to themselves.

I dont think it will do much,it will just prevent people from dumping as soon as they can.Will this increase the price? It might, but not because it got better, only because you reduced the current supply.

Zcash is going to have lots of selling pressure untill people make the money back from the ASICs. At the rate Zcash price keeps going down and hashrate keeps going up, most people will never ROI now.


#8

Actually only for a limited time, if my calculation is correct only for 50 weeks. Once from introduction of that payout design 50 weeks past everything is as it was, just delayed, but the mining supply would be again the same 50 weeks later.


#9

:joy: All you guys responding allready missed the most important part in the proposal. This locking is ONLY for the new GPU algo, NOT for the current Asic algo…

Part of the changes planned for the Blossom network upgrade is timelocking mining rewards (for the new/second PoW algorithm only) so that they are released over the course of 50 weeks.

I knew that blossom harmony is a total useless fail upgrade but i didn’t expect this going that far. And i’am saying this as a (former) asic miner…


#10

I dont think ASIC would be able to receive rewards instantly and GPU miners would have to wait for a year. This is not logical.


#11

It’s maybe logical but it’s unfair, but it’s what it writes and what the proposal seem to be about. The intention they have in mind is actually logical. Asic can’t move from equihash but the gpu can move to whatever algo. That’s where the idea is based on, betting even on this, hence the proposal only for the new gpu algo and timelocked rewards.

Just explaining the logic from their Point of view in my opinion, not defending it!!!


#12

Well if this is what they had in mind, I have no words. If ASICS rewards arent delayed, so shouldnt be ones for GPU miners.

Now that I have read it carefully, you are completely right @boxalex . It seems they only planned delaying reward for new second PoW algorithm only. WOW why do they hate GPU miners so much ? [Moderation edit by @daira: personal attack deleted.]


#13

Of course, went to gifthub and whole channel of the proposal and readed the whole topic just to make sure it’s like i read it and it’s just like that: locked mining rewards for the new gpu algo.

I have allready repeated myself that the harmony blossom upgrade will be a total fail anyway, this time locking proposal will just force me to call it now “mega total fail”.

I got so many times attacked by some gpu guys for favouring POS as the next upgrade that they would have been 10x better with POS than with this time locked gpu algo they get now…


#14

@Dodger

how is the legal status of such timelocked mining rewards? I’am not familar with such laws but i could imagine that this could cause legal problems.

I mean, witholding mining rewards and paying them out over 50 weeks has a character like paying dividends, depositing, banking, lending, or a mix of these.

What about securing the timelocked mining rewards? As it’s the implentation of Zcash so Zcash must be responsible that the valid and real owner of the future 50 week delayed rewards will get them. Wouldn’t this somehow lead to creating a fund or something like that so it is secured that the miners get the rewards. Or how will this be managed, ensured and who is repsonsible for miners getting their delayed rewards?

Did someone research the legal impact allready, if yes, what’s the outcome, link would be appreciated to the conclusion. I have serious doubts this doesn’t have some legal consequences so upfront bevor making such proposals legal advice should be taken and the result shared with the community, at least with the foundation, not?

Another thing that comes into my mind is a huge level of centralization involved with this. Just to compare it to a given POS design by a given currency i have researched where you have the option to lock your coins for 1 week up to 2 years and choose whatever period and with it higher interests you get with a predicted 50 week timelock there are no options left other than accept or leave, which again in my opinion is a high level of centralization.

This leads me to the next problem i see. My mining reward is timelocked for 50 weeks, right? But i don’t get any interest of it, again right i guess. Where is the deal for the miner? Simple example with a budget of let’s say $1500 available and ProwPOW taken as it seems one of the algos possible for the 2nd mining algo with 1080ti gpu and electricity rate of 10 cents per kw/h.

1.) GPU example: The gpu miner has to pay daily $0.48 for electricity, makes around 175 per year for electricity The price for the 1080ti gpu due ebay for new one is about 1.150-1400. Means with $1,500 investment you have 1 gpu for mining and paid electricity for 1 year.

2.) Direct buy example: With $1,500 i can buy about 30 ZEC right now. There is absolutly no intention why i should buy mining equipment and than way some 50 weeks to have my mining rewards in my pockets, maybe.

3.) POS example: As direct buy is anyway more of interest it’s just logical that getting interest from a given coin is even more interesting. So with $1,500 invested into a given POS coin X and an interest of 5-15% i would have from the original 30 X units 31.5 - 34.5 X units currency.

I made these 3 examples just to make it clear that there that it makes zero logic someone to begin/continue mining with delayed POW rewards as there are way better options left for someone investing instead into hardware and electricity.

Than what about the transaction fees. Each timelocked reward has than again a transaction fee attached even further lowering the mining reward or how is the payout planned to happen?

Next question. How would this effect the dev reward %, are these as well time locked? I doubt but still asking.

What about the miningpool fee, when does the 1, 2 or 3% mining pools take effect and are calculated? For each paid out reward or directly when mined?

Anybody asked allready the question how you think the miner, no matter if the private miner or the one with 10.000 gpu mining facility will pay for electricity meanwhile until they receive their reward?

I actually even could see a legal problem, may sound strange, with discrimination. I mean Asics get paid out directly and immediatly, gpu’s get paid out timelocked, there is a big piece of discrimination involved. I very good could imagine that at least in the EU this is considered discrimination even it sounds abstract.

Security question. If i remember right i readed that in case of an attack Zcash and the miningpools could react fast but at at cost that all mining rewards generating at the given time on the given attacked miningpool will be worthless. How would this scenario affect the timelocked mining rewards?

Some perosnal notes. I personally refuse to lock my coins even for 1 month on given POS coins, what’s left for a 12 months locking period, but that’s just me of course.

I predicted in the harmony blossom topic allready that this will be a major fail upgrade and approach. Now with the time locked gpu rewards i’am even more convinced that this upgrade is the most useless ZEC update/upgrade ever with most resources wasted for nothing.

I doubt, as by now many times, that any proper researches have been done, this inclused the whole blossom harmony upgrade as well as the legal aspects of the timelocked gpu rewards. Leave alone the asic question long bevor they got announced. The hard it may sound, but these approaches without research don’t convince me that the last and next 2 years the ZEC team knows where they are heading at all.

In case, i doubt it, someone can answer the questions, thx in advance.


#15

To echo what Zooko said on the Github ticket, there’s no reason to think this change would make Zcash be considered a security.


#16

Hmm I was wondering, what stops pools from paying out rewards faster after couple months? I mean they could pay out people faster, and with that get more popular among miners if they have some backing (with what to pay it with), and they will get that Zcash back with mining.

I mean imagine if a pool did that and set a 5% pool fee or 10%. Would you rather mine on that pool as a GPU and receive rewards instantly or wait for a year ?

And there you have it, pool centralization is finished as well as miner centralization :smiley:


#17

seems that asics are protected by all means, that is totally not what zcash should be imo.


#18

Wouldnt surprise me. There seems to be some dislike vs GPU miners comming from Zcash nowdays, im not sure how we went from ASIC-RESISTANT, to FULLY SUPPORTS ASICs and will do everything we can to keep them happy and mining our algo.

Why should I belive Zcash now about anything they write or say? They were CLEARLY against ASICs when the coin was started, and flipped to accepting them before they were even shipped out, infact from the way things played out, its almost as if they have welcomed the ASICs into the network…

Now talks to penalize GPU miners and not the ASICs. What the hell happened to Zcash? ASICs get you by the balls? Seems like you guys are scared of what they might do to your network with all the centralized hashpower they control.

Hope losing a majority of your community and becomming beholden to ASICs was worth rushing Sapling out. Even tho 80+% of transaction are still unshielded. You guys rushed tech you thought was more important, and nobody is using it, while doing so you have lost a huge chuck of your community…was it worth it?

Would delaying sapling 3-6 months have been that big of a issue? Clearly there wasnt many people waiting to use the new tech considering how the majority of transactions are still unshielded to this day.


#19

This answers my question only half. Has a deeper research been done, like consulting with a law firm or true experts on this field or is just the believing of the head is fully enough to continue this timelocking approach?

Don’t get me wrong, but this would be a lot of wasted resources/money if at some time it turns out that there are legal problems affilated with timelocking funds that are owed by the Zcash Co to miners…


#20

A issue I could see is with tax reasons. Do you claim the coin the day its mined and locked(its yours now right?), or each week you get the .2 ZEC?

Seems like this could cause alot of problems with pools locking coins also. I wouldnt want my pool with that much control over my coins.


#21

I’m thoroughly opposed to this time-locking, as I’ve made clear on the GitHub issue.

  • This proposal was made by @zooko only 23 days ago, without any background discussion or consultation with engineers — most of whom have been on holiday for much of that period. It was also described as a “requirement”, not a proposal. Just on process grounds it should be considered to have been made too late to be considered for Blossom. (Incidentally, I have complained on previous occasions, based on experience with Sapling, about new proposals being made too late in an upgrade cycle, and had received assurances that this would not happen in future :-/ ) This also means that people outside ZcashCo have had a very limited time to consider the proposal.

  • I was already seriously worried about the possibility of alg-B (the algorithm being introduced in Blossom) having insufficient hash rate for security against rollback attacks . It is very difficult to make dual PoW significantly more secure than the weaker of the two algorithms. (I’m about to post the results of some simulations on GitHub explaining how difficult; and in fact those results cast serious doubt on whether we should do dual PoW at all.) So, there is a significant risk that an attacker may be able to quite cheaply obtain enough alg-B hash power, relative to the rest of the network, that they need very much less than 50% of the alg-A hash power in order to perform a rollback attack.

  • Even if there were not serious doubts over the security of Harmony mining due to low alg-B hash rate (at least initially), the time-locking arguably defeats the remaining purpose which was to “more fairly” distribute mining rewards. A system in which alg-B miners must suffer time-locked rewards, but alg-A miners do not, will not be perceived as “fair”, because it is not.

  • Very little consideration has been paid to the fact that most mining is via pools (@str4d and I touched on it briefly here). How will the delayed reward affect payouts to client miners? So far we haven’t sought any feedback specifically from pool operators.

  • The costs of mining (rent, electricity, etc.) are obviously not delayed. As far as I can see, the only way to afford these costs given the delay in payouts, is to already have a large cash buffer. This encourages further mining centralization, again reducing security.

Rollback attacks are sometimes called “51% attacks”. However, this is a misnomer because they do not require an adversary to have 51% of the hash rate in order to have a significant probability of performing a rollback as long as the recommended number of confirmations. See these papers for more accurate estimates: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02867 and https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.05255.pdf . The simulation code I’ve written takes this into account.