The future of Zcash in the year 2020

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Price Speculation

:thinking: Interesting, Bitcoin Cash miners propose to allocate funds from mining rewards to fund development: CEO of BTC.TOP proposes share of block rewards to support ecosystem

5 Likes

Wow. That’s impressive.

But it’s not fair, why does Bitcoin Cash get to have all the vocal miners who write well-reasoned Medium posts about their position? Can’t we have some communicative ones too?

3 Likes

Non-debate theory must be a personal theory because it does not appear to exist elsewhere, I understood that to be despotism but whatevs

I’m a little uneasy watching a minority of Bitcoin Cash miners force themselves over the rest of their peers even if I have some sympathy for their cause. I assume the game-theory is sound but this approach is fundamentally coercive and violent, and therefore repugnant.

I can see thier reasoning (developers need to eat too) but I also agree with your point that a minority of miners should not be able to push an agenda if the majority of the coins community doesn’t support that agenda.

3 Likes

Agreed, and for the record I am not against a devfee but I think there is a way to do it and that process must involve consent. The big difference with ZCash is that we started out with a founding reward, no one was held at gunpoint to join this chain. Heck, there is even a fork that doesn’t feature a FR.

I guess the challenge now is to reach consensus on NU4 and legitimize the devfee. @tromer’s comment made me think (thanks!), and now the more I think about it, the more I agree with him that it is somewhat sad that the miners are apathetic because that decision really belongs to them. As long as the supply schedule is untouched (a sacred oath) then the common user is only impacted in terms of security (devfee eats into mining rentability).

Clearly it is still significant but they are secondary compared to eating your margins (esp. considering halving is coming soon). But if they don’t care, they don’t care. And maybe militant miners would create too much pressure the current governance process can handle. I’m not sure, LMK what you think :smiley:

1 Like

I personally would be more carefully calling them apathic for these reasons:

  • There was no mining pool (not miners!) participating in the first dev fund voting process.
  • Without a single mining pool participating i think it’s safe to say that there was no way that miners have been aware that there is a dev funding debatte and voting.
  • Only mining pools have been contacted directly (from what i know) while an option would have been to contact the biggest miners directly (Bitmain, Innosilicon, such like).
  • There is a language barrier. The big majority due mining centralization is located in china and (former) russian republics and it’s again safe to say that without having announcements in chinese/russian on forums/places these miners use there is not really a way they are even aware what happens on this english forum here, leave alone a complicated voting process in English only.

My personal opinion is that it’s not quiet fair to call a group apathic as long as there is a chance they have and are still not aware about the whole dev fund voting having in mind they even did not have a platform even if they have been aware to input their vote as no mining pool was participating.

Since this proposal for Bitcoin Cash to fork and add a development fund is supported by Jihan Wu (Bitmain) do you think that they would have voted against a dev fund for Zcash?

I’am not sure, on first view i see 2 possible scenarios in the interest of/for Bitmain:

Dev Fund for Bitcoin Cash:

  • lowering the profitability for miners they strenghten their own mining operations
  • it’s a coin they seem to actively support
  • they support chinese mining activities and help eleminate other minign activities indirectly

Dev Fund for Zcash:

  • again lowering the profitability for miners and strenghten their own mining operations
  • they again would support chinese mining activities and help eleminate foreighn mining activities indirectly.
    Question:
  • Is it a coin they actively support? If they see Zcash as competition their is a chance they would have voted aginst, not sure about this.

As you ask directly i think they woould have supported the Dev fund for strategic above reasons.

So every coin wants block-reward based development. This is actually superb news for Zcash!!

3 Likes

This is certainly an interesting turn of events, since launch Zcash has been getting grief from the crypo community about the FR and now it’s the new thing to do.

Zcash pioneered zkSNARKs; ETH, Tron, etc… add them.

Zcash pioneered a block reward based funding model; Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash want to add one.

What’s next?

Either way something tells me that this is all good news for Zcash.

15 Likes

Yes, same feeling.

Zcash pioneers base-layer scalability???

2 Likes

Boom :boom: that’s what’s next!

4 Likes

New development: https://www.coindesk.com/roger-vers-mining-pool-pulls-support-for-bitcoin-cash-dev-fund-over-chain-split-threat

“No proposal should put this goal at risk,” the post reads. Although some sort of a funding plan is required, “it cannot come at the expense of compromising the foundational goals of Bitcoin Cash,” the pool said.

Huh, haven’t thought about BCH in a long time, but with their history of weaponizing hashpower this doesn’t really surprise me. It’ll get bad, quickly, then it’ll get worse.

2 Likes

lol. inb4 halving.

1 Like

Reward should be 3.125 zec after halving, it is 6.25 zec now? Or im wrong?

Blossom had not activated when this thread was created. Blossom doubled the block emission rate, and thus halved the block reward from 12.5 to 6.25 ZEC to ensure that the monetary supply curve was unaltered from a “wall clock” perspective (still 50 ZEC every 10 minutes or so).

1 Like

Ok, but after halving emission rate stays the same and reward halves to 3,125 zec per block?