I appreciate that perspective, but I feel strongly those who use our product, shielded coin holding, shielded coin p2p money, should have a louder voice than say, Binance. Are they really aligned with our project or are they just surviving at our projects expense? Coinbase recently removed liquidity from their CEX, should we count on them to vote in this projects best interest?
These are tough questions, questions that I don’t have all the answers to. I wish more “transparent whales” would discuss how they feel, but then again, why hold Zcash if you only care about making dollars? Bitcoin exists, go try an ETF today! Perhaps these mega whales are so scared of the governments, they are forced to stay transparent? How can we know unless we have signal? Thanks for the lively discussion.
So how exactly are things going to grow if the same people who hold the higher weights drive the future direction? That’s one of the main reasons we keep ending up in the same place over and over. Zashi’s out there… lovely… I keep seeing the updates with so many new downloads each month - guess what - did that translate into more use of Zcash, driving growth and adoption??? I don’t know… but it doesn’t seem like it.
I think we can all agree price is low rn. Buy a large bag and shielded it, save it, spend it, vote with it. Don’t leave it on a CEX, I’m not sure that is what this project is about, Opsec or not.
Keep in mind that we are talking about what is funded, but not ultimate protocol governance. It’s simple incentive alignment.
Different people have different risk tolerances. And I know a number of ZEC holders that have been using Ledgers and Trezors. We’ve seen many of thrm post here and elsewhere because of Ledger’s failure.
Providing better options and greater shielded adoption is why we built Zashi, prioritized Keystone and want to build Zashi Vault. But we still have work to do and I maintain that we shouldn’t attempt to silence ZEC holders based upon a purity test.
Super disappointed at this too, but at least this gave ECC the opportunity to bring Keystone to reality. You guys have done a great job with that.
I’m actually very open minded about how and why people use technology. I don’t like this reduces down to a purity test , but I’m not sure its possible to avoid because we each have differing priorities.
One thing we can all agree with though, is that we need to try something new because were going insane over here.
This is why I’m pro send everything to the lockbox so we can figure out what those priorities are. Inflation is down, lets further reduce spending until we are ready.
My transparent ZEC are as valuable as my shielded ZEC (and I can shield them anytime if I want). The reason why I hold some in the transparent pool and some in the shielded pool is my business and should not be of anyone´s concern. You cannot punish people with “less voting power” just because they like the optionality of using both pools.
I agree. Letting transparent coins vote is an heresy. How can you not use the main feature of a network and pretend to have a say in its direction…What’s next? Maybe BTC ETF holders should have a say in Zcash voting too.
To be honest, I’m not sure whether Lockbox + ZCG, Lockbox alone, or all block reward going to the miners is best for long-term stability. There are good arguments for and against all. But what concerns me most right now, is what happens if ECC runs out of funding before NU7/ZSAs can be launched? We need to find some kind of mechanism that ensures mission critical orgs stay afloat until EOY 2025 at a minimum, or we are looking at a huge mess of potentially wasted time/energy/money.
Same. It’s just not practical for a variety of reasons for me to keep 100% of my ZEC shielded. I have transparent ZEC that I’ve stored that way for years. They’ll almost certainly become shielded in the future and remain within the ZEC ecosystem. Can someone explain to me why they should be counted as “less-than” for governance purposes?
Zcashers take advantage of various storage methods to manage risks and various personal and business needs. It’s a responsible and totally reasonable thing to do. No one gets to say that someone’s ZEC is worth less because they exercise their right to do what they want with their ZEC. It is not anybody’s business how someone chooses to secure their ZEC and not something anyone gets to police. If someone stores $1M worth of transparent ZEC using a method they deem most secure, their investment into the future of Zcash is not any less significant than someone with $10 worth of shielded ZEC. They are not second class citizens for having different needs and threat models. Transparent ZEC is currently one of the features of the protocol. Build a different solution (that makes users want to shield their ZEC instead of forcing them) before suggesting to punish users for using the product as intended. 1 ZEC = 1 ZEC.
The “variety of reasons” being that you want to remain compliant and obedient to the powers in place if they decide to ban privacy one day.
That’s fine but playing both sides just shouldn’t give you a voice in a privacy based network.
I would be more OK with this if you could prove you own the keys and sign the tx. Problem is, I’m betting most who use T’s dont run full nodes, and probably don’t care. So the problem now becomes is this Angst01’s vote or Gemini’s vote?
Furthermore, would you be willing to share you T address for a public vote?
zcashd as a full node (being deprecated, replaced by zebrad)
zcashd as a wallet (being deprecated, replaced by Zallet)
The protocol spec
ZIPs (collaboratively via their engineers that are currently ZIP Editors, their engineers that write ZIPs, and general maintenance of the ZIP text and corresponding infrastructure)
The low-level Zcash cryptography crates (used by everything in Zcash, and some other ecosystems)
The core Zcash Rust crates (used by everything in the Zcash ecosystem, including zebrad)
The wallet-related Zcash Rust crates (used by Zallet, the mobile SDKs, eZcash, WebZjs, etc.)
Zallet (full node wallet, being built, currently only ECC is working on it)
The Android and iOS mobile SDKs (used by Zashi, Edge, Unstoppable, previously Nighthawk)
Zashi (“a wallet application”)
It is true that Zashi requires everything in the stack above it; you can’t have the Zashi wallet application without also having everything above it. So you could pretend that without zcashd, ECC’s work is “just a wallet application”. But that ignores the fact that ECC’s work also supports many other wallets, apps, ecosystem participants, etc.
If ECC goes away, the rest of the ecosystem will need to absorb all of those ongoing costs somehow. I argue that the rest of the ecosystem should start absorbing some of those costs now, by more individuals or organizations committing to help with ongoing maintenance:
PR review
Bug investigation and fixing
Security incidence response
Integration of new features
Testing
Tech debt removal
Coordinating on disruptive API / feature changes (e.g. upgrading a trait crate like ff or digest, or a refactor to zcash_primitives)
Rolling new features and releases into downstream parts of the stack
yea same. isnt coin voting possible atm only with orchard ZEC?
i understand people who have long term stored ZEC away on transparent wallets as that was the only secure way not long ago. its unfortunate. i dont have anything against people holding ZEC on transparent wallet, but it kinda makes the shielded pools weaker…
hmm on the security part. lets say you have securely stored away your ZEC and not easy to access. then it wouldnt be possible to vote with it either way i guess?
going forward the more ZEC is in orchard pool and that can vote, imo its better for everyone.
in theory id say let the transparent ZEC vote also, but im not sure if that helps growth of shielded pool - that should be as big as possible.
That’s a different conversation. The tools that builders have built or will build are up to the builders. To approach that discussion from the position of “transparent ZEC holders don’t deserve a say” is completely out of tune given how diverse the current needs of Zcash users are. There is no sound logic behind attempting to drive that artificial wedge between community members. Each ZEC holder is a win for Zcash. Each ZEC holder counts. Period.
Yes they do, but I question why some would want to hold Zcash if its purely on a T inside a CEX. I have every right to criticize and question motives because frankly, its not helping drive shielded adaption.
Indeed it’s quite concerning that privacy and freedom values are not being taken seriously. So maybe the best path is simply to shut down the dev fund after all.
, but I’m not sure its possible to avoid because we each have differing priorities.