We know most people are against changing the cap. This thread is for people wishing to discuss how it may be beneficial to change it, and how they would like this to happen. If you do not wish to change the cap, please do not impede on this thread.
With that being said, this is a followup on @joshs message:
As mentioned before, I personally believe that a little inflation would be a very sensible way forward. There are no proofs, currently, that the Bitcoin model can work long term. However there has been a lot of smart and wise voices that have warned that it cannot be sustainable.
I remember @zooko being quite vocal about keeping the 21M cap during the last Zcon, just like everybody else really. That is aside from @joshs, whom remained open-minded on that question.
I don’t think this is how a healthy discussion should be held. Personally, I am against changing the cap but I also see the point people makes about security implication in the future.
Most of the community is against this idea at this point. If I do not start with this statement, any voice for changing the cap, will be immediately argued against to death.
I want a safe place dedicated to people who share the belief that raising the 21M cap may be positive. That is so we can peacefully assess different approaches.
Indeed, I would appreciate the moderation team to help keep this thread on-topic. Thanks a lot.
How will changing the cap or not changing the cap change the amount of value that Zcash brings to people? Will changing the cap or leaving it the same make Zcash more likely to have a bigger positive impact on people living in crisis today? Will it make businesses more efficient?
First changing the cap only implies that, which is no longer exactly 21M tokens. We could do less to increase scarcity, or we could do more to keep inflation constant (for example) and ensure Zcash remains secure (for example also).
Here’s an actual scientific paper on the subject from people who know a thing or two about economics:
Talented, honest people are in crisis and even starving because of the lack of a great way to send and receive liquid value privately across borders. We have the opportunity today to directly ameliorate some the worst mass catastrophes that people have ever faced.
We must attack big problems that Zcash can play a role in solving now with full force and focus.
Jelly, please leave Bitcoin problems to Bitcoin when they get there they will solve it, and then Zcash will follow with the solution if needed. right now everything is working there and here also.
or maybe go to Bitcoin forum with this problem, lets see what they tell to you… but don’t report or flag their answers ahhaha
i wonder what could be a reason for some average joe to bring up such big ideas to the table?? you want to decide for millions of investors? dilute our investments?
maybe you are a sock puppet account of someone ?
In the block size debate, it is frequently argued or assumed that
space in the block chain will be a scarce resource and a
market will emerge, with users being able to speed up the
confirmation of a transaction by paying a sufficiently large
transaction fee. But if miners intentionally “leave money on
the table” when solving blocks, as is the case in undercutting
attacks, it breaks this assumption.
Miners are human and humans will do human things.
We see the block reward as integral to the stability of the mining game. At a
minimum, analyzing equilibria in the transaction-fee regime
appears dramatically harder than in the block-reward regime,
which is a cause for concern by itself. The monetary infla-
tion resulting from making the block reward permanent, as
Ethereum does, may be a small price to pay to ensure the
stability of a cryptocurrency.
Psychology aside, I think the points raised here are interesting to think about. Thanks for sharing
I think the only way most will ever be open to this idea is if BTC is no longer number 1 in marketcap, that is all folks see ( $$$ )
I’m not sure how this is specifically related to a 21m cap?
This can be delegated to ZSAs and a zUSD or similar.
We must attack big problems that Zcash can play a role in solving now with full force and focus.
Wrong. You start small and then advance. This pie-in-the-sky dream to be everything to everyone and solve all the world’s problems is unrealistic and actually a detriment to most businesses. Focus on the core competency. Let charities or others distribute it when the protocol actually works as advertised (syncing, wallets that work, developers that can build on it, etc).
There’s no way to prevent anyone from creating a chain fork that gets rid of the 21M cap, and if someone were to do that then the market would decide whether that fork was more valuable or not. IMO the only question here is whether the existing Zcash community would fund an effort to hard-fork in that direction; I don’t see any suggestion that doing this kind of work now is useful or valuable, so why is it even a question? Supposedly this is a problem for Bitcoin too, but I don’t see any forks removing the Bitcoin cap gaining any market share, and they’re a couple halvings ahead of Zcash. So IMHO this isn’t even worth worrying about now; if at some point in the future the security budget becomes a problem, then the future Zcash community can worry about it.
I don’t see how this can even be seriously discussed, especially when ZEC is worth $20, or maybe even easily lower. I’m definitely not going to participate in the argument, it’s as absurd as the name change proposals. Learn GitHub and make forks.
It should not be. but there is a group that believes in it. so we should just put it to sleep. Zec holder vote of greater than 2/3ds in value and greater than 50% in number are required to change it. put it into the governance or some governing document. This concept of a “community” decision or “consensus” when it’s just so vague and amorphous doesn’t provide the level of certainty people expect. there are certain attributes of zec like the 21m cap and halving schedule that should be carved in stone.
The holder voting mechanism will come to our wallets someday. It’s not there now. And ZCAP’s decision on this issue simply does not make sense. Such a vote itself will cause so many unnecessary questions in the wider community that the last holders will run away from Zcash. I don’t understand why this is being discussed. There is no need for it except for some group’s desire to deal another blow to the price of ZEC.
My plan doesn’t involve any charity whatsoever. Charity can not solve crises in my view. Zcash in it’s current form is already a great tool for global commerce (now that syncing and wallets are improved). Zcash is usable. Zcash needs legal and compliance frameworks that allow businesses to use it with confidence where it is already one of the best tools. We can go from negligible usage to billions of dollars of real commerce right now. My point WRT to the OP is that we shouldn’t spend focus on changes that are irrelevant like changing the cap. Changing the cap does not help the protocol function as advertised, does not help onboard developers and businesses, and therefore, talking about it is a waste of time at this juncture.
is unrealistic and actually a detriment to most businesses. Focus on the core competency. Let charities or others distribute it when the protocol actually works as advertised (syncing, wallets that work, developers that can build on it, etc).