Removing ZCAP members

Ah! The mystery is resolved! I’m glad that’s cleared up.

@zecretary You are, of course, welcome to keep your seat on ZCAP. We can change the name from Lillian Gish to zecretary. We’ll respond to @hloo to let him know that he can nominate someone else.


There is some special authority granted to ZCAP members, namely that they are who decide the outcome of ZIPs

Thank you @Dodger

Please update my ZCAP using the information from Howards’ nomination.
Gotta keep the aliases with their proper email addresses :wink:

The ZCAP is ‘instrumental’ in providing a measure of consensus for the ZFND to draw upon but polling is advisory. Edit- better link

To an outsider, this would look an awful lot like a witch-hunt or a Soviet-style political purge:

I’m not really an outsider; but I am seeing this with fresh eyes like one. And I know well a rule of thumb, of which most people are unaware: In any successful Internet venue, at least 90% of readers are lurkers. The participants whom you see are only the tip of the iceberg. (For instance, I myself lurked for years on the Bitcoin Forum before I created an account; and I lurked on-and-off here on the Zcash Forum in 2018–2019, before losing interest in all the drama.) With few exceptions, I almost always write primarily for that unseen audience.

You never know who will read your posts. I encourage everyone to remember always that when you post here, you are representing Zcash to people who don’t even have Zcash forum accounts, and probably never will. Like it or not. Whether or not that’s fair. Rightly or wrongly. For better or for worse.

For worse in this context: This thread gives the appearance of intimidating and deterring dissent against POS. Regardless of anyone’s intentions here, that’s how it comes off.

Besides many vague accusations, the only specific statements quoted as ostensibly objectionable consist of seven tweets. Four are substantively against POS. Of the other three: One is quoted out of context, in a way that twists what Ehrenhofer said; see the context re “real Zcash”; I disagree with how Mohr and Ehrenhofer characterize it, but it’s hard to call that anti-Zcash when ECC is so worried about the same problem, they developed auto-shielding. One tweet is a scathing remark about a serious, privacy-destroying security bug in some wallets; that tweet could be deemed objectionable only by someone who doesn’t care about user safety. And one other seems like a bit of Monero vs. Zcash rivalry, but it doesn’t say anything at all derogatory about Zcash; is that the worst anyone could find?

Pretend that you don’t now any of the participants, and objectively read the thread with fresh eyes from top to bottom. @sgp appears to be targeted as someone standing vehemently against the POS groupthink. He is well-known, but he has Zcash Foundation board members and ZF-owned forum moderators ganging up on him. It tends to make others think, “I’m just a nobody. If @sgp got in trouble with the Zcash authorities for his opinion of this, then maybe I should just shut up.”

That is deeply concerning to me, since the issue that brought me back to this forum is that I’m frankly scared by this drastic change in Zcash’s direction. I don’t know what to do. A coin’s economics are a promise, upon which I have relied for almost the past six years. I am trying to get a handle on the problem—to figure out how to approach it. I think that I need a book-sized website against POS—to collect all of the various arguments against it, from every angle. The thread where discussion thereof is siloed here is assuredly inadequate for such a enormous issue, in the sense of enormity.

And unlike @sgp, I have no other “privacy coin” on which to fall back. I never imagined that Monero had adequate privacy; if I did, I would be using it, which I’m not. I am dependent on my ZECs.

That is an alarming cultlike attempt to enforce an artificial in-group identification and conformity.

Moreover, this is a Kafkaesque prosecution. If the accused had spoken consistently in terms of “we”, then he would probably have been accused of presumptuously pretending to speak for others.

I myself consciously try to avoid “we” language, in contexts where I think that it would be inappropriate for me to hold myself forth as speaking for a group. (I sometimes fail, when I am passionate about something; but I try.) This applies especially in case of something like Zcash. People need to be careful of such pretenses. And I am justifiably offended when others say “we” in a way that inappropriately pretends to include me in statements that I find disagreeable. I correct people who pretend to speak for me: “I am not a part of your ‘we’.”

Contempt is sometimes deserved. For instance, reading this thread and many of the other recent Zcash dramas, I have a great contempt for the current state of Zcash governance. Those who don’t wish to be contemned, and who don’t wish to bring the Zcash governance structures into contempt, should avoid behaving contemptibly. I am frankly shocked by what I have seen in some recent threads, including this one.

As a general observation, rationalizations, lack of responsibility, manipulativeness, and a tendency to blame others for one’s own faults are toxic relationship killers. So are abusive attempts to deprive others of personal agency.

Speaking for myself, I came to Zcash for privacy and freedom. Not to be programmed and controlled by others. I suggest that Zcash governance structures urgently to reaffirm a respect the freedom of others.

Does anyone here seriously suggest that the Zcash Foundation should have the authority to impose Zcash forum moderation policies on all observable behaviour anywhere by Zcashers? :scream_cat:

That is exactly how I would respond, if I were in your shoes. Kudos.

I dislike Monero. I have been preparing since last week to say some very harsh things about its in another thread, which I will address in due course. In another venue last month, a pseudonym that some people allege may be mine got into a heated public argument, after a BTC/XMR user threw at him a profanity-laced rant totally ignorant of the fact that the trusted setup is dead. (They talked it out, and made peace as fellow Bitcoiners with apologies on both sides.)

I don’t know you. If I did, maybe I would dislike you; maybe not. I said all of the above when I am admittedly biased against you, based on the longtime anti-Zcash FUD that is endemic in the Monero community. The way that you were treated in this thread, you emerge looking like a noble martyr.

This whole thread is one extended personal attack on you—based on nothing. (What happened to the “Code of Conduct”? LOL.) You have been accused ad hominem, you have had your motives impugned, you have been psychoanalysed, and—for all the sound and fury, the only evidence presented is, in substantial essence, that you are upset by security bugs that destroy user privacy, and you have a sane opinion of POS. You are evil.

Finding this thread reminded me that not all of the bad behaviour is always on one side.

I am old enough to remember when Bitcoin-bashing and staff-level snipes at “Bitcoin maxis” had not infected the community. Bitcoin Envy is a stereotypical sign that an altcoin is going down the tubes. I recall that during the mid-2017 bull run, when ZEC peaked >0.1 BTC and spent months cycling in a 0.045–0.065 channel, the speculation threads here featured some savvy traders who happily made themselves more of both currencies. What happened to them?

Besides its absolute leadership in privacy, ZEC has always had economic cred to me partly because every major exchange has a direct ZEC/BTC pair. New-generation alts often lack that, since they are only pump-and-dump scams to grab fiat “profits”. Who cares about centralized, depreciating long-con scam shitcoins like USD and EUR? I can do ZEC forex trades with real money, i.e., Bitcoin.

Anyway, @zecretary, my condolences that your alt-nym got burned. As an old cypherpunk, I hate it when that happens. :joy_cat:


I only just noticed this comment. Speaking as a ZIP Editor: there is no such rule. The ZIP Process is described in ZIP 0.



1 Like