From a non programmer point of view: what about trying to fill the gaps required for being integrated in a popular app? I’m thinking of Signal announcing mobilecoin, and when asking them why not zcash or other existing projects, it was mostly because of the overall speed.
It looks like a real world issue that could maybe attract companies like signal once solved.
I was trying to bring this up at Zcon0 with the Facebook representative, but people laughed and changed the topic, they failed at integrating Libra into the marketplace, and currently have the largest social network on earth. Mark Z is king of kings, no man has ever had that many people in his commons.
The ZCAP poll has been sent out, with two questions relating to Zcash’s post-NU5 priorities:
What do you believe should be the first (short-term) priority for Zcash following the activation of NU5?
What do you believe should be the second (longer-term) priority for Zcash following the activation of NU5?
The options available are:
Improve Zcash’s scalability
Move away from Proof of Work
Add Programmability to Zcash
Add Support for User-Defined Assets to Zcash
The poll will close at 09:00 UTC on 1st September.
I want to acknowledge the suggestions from @teor (reduce protocol complexity), @dontbeevil (10x size of ZEC in shielded pools), and @den (trying to fill the gaps required for being integrated in a popular app).
@teor and I discussed the topic of protocol complexity and agreed that this is something that we should be doing anyway (i.e. no matter what our priorities are in terms of new features and functionality), as a matter of sustainability, best engineering practise, and minimizing Zcash’s attack surface.
@dontbeevil - I agree wholeheartedly that we should be seeking to increase the amount of ZEC stored in shielded pools but I feel like this is an outcome that will result from improving the Zcash protocol and educating users. As such, I didn’t feel it was appropriate to include it as an option in this poll.
@den - Similarly, while I agree that we should be making it easier to integrate Zcash with other apps (and hopefully Zebra’s modular architecture is a step in the right direction for this), I don’t feel that we have enough clarity on what changes to the core protocol would support this objective.
I don’t believe this option, or this set of options in total, is consistent with ECC’s recommendation, or the expressed desires of many in the community.
I think it would be better to at least say something like “Explore other consensus mechanisms other than pure Proof of Work” to allow for alternatives such as hybrid PoW/PoS or other things. For example, a PoW miner might oppose a “move away from PoW” but support a hybrid option.
ECC’s position isn’t really a move “away” from something. Our recommendation is to move toward Proof of Stake for a variety of positive reasons. There are many others in the community that have also voiced that opinion. @Dodger previously mentioned in an Arborist call that the Zfnd might prefer something else, but having language specific to PoS in the survey gives the community means to express its opinion.
Zfnd, I humbly request you change the survey to more accurately reflect the community’s expressed interests.
You make a good point hybrid PoW solutions but, unfortunately, Helios doesn’t permit changes to the questions after a poll is opened.
I’d point out that this is an advisory poll. It’s not binding on anyone, and if strong evidence emerges that options that aren’t included in this poll have widespread support (e.g. if many forum users respond to this thread expressing dismay that they are unable to vote for an option that encompasses hybrid PoW), we can always run another poll with more granular options.
Are you able to void it and send another? “Proof of Stake” is not mentioned anywhere in the poll in spite of widespread discussion support here and across other mediums. For example, here is a list of supporters I pulled quickly from Twitter:
This is in additional to our posts about the benefits and a possible hybrid approach toward realization.
I believe that words are important and that it’s not splitting hairs. If I understand correctly, the reason it was worded that way is because Dodger would like to explore other consensus mechanisms (@Dodger - please correct me if I’m wrong), which is fine but not a good reason for wording it the way he did for a poll, and it’s really a trivial change to get it closer to what the community expressed it is interested in - which is PoS or a hybrid.
I’m not necessarily in favor of generic move away from proof of work, toward an unspecified consensus mechanism. For example I don’t think I would be in favor of a ‘proof of space and time’ mechanism used by the chia network.
@Dodger, I’m a ZCAP voter, and not sure how I should vote on this to best express my opinion. Would voting that I don’t want a generic move ‘away from PoW’ be interpreted by the Foundation as a vote against moving to PoS?
Since votes have already been cast, perhaps just send out a message to all ZCAP members saying something like:
A vote for "Move away from Proof of Work" shall not be construed as a vote against moving to a hybrid Proof of Work / Proof of Stake system. A voter who supports making a move to such a hybrid system or a pure Proof of Stake system should choose the "Move away from Proof of Work" option to express that preference.
If a voter disagrees with this clarification, they can choose to change their vote before the voting period closes (since Helios allows voters to change their votes up until the end).
Our objective here is not to stage a formal referendum to determine which alternative to PoW Zcash should adopt. I think it would be premature to ask that question at this stage. Changing the consensus mechanism has far-reaching implications for Zcash, including the network’s security, decentralisation, incentives, how ZEC is distributed (and concentrated), and the perception of Zcash as a store of value versus a means of payment.
To be clear, the Foundation isn’t opposed to PoS in principle. We just think that, if the community does want to move away from PoW, given the magnitude and import of such a change, we should consider what other alternatives there are, instead of just focusing on PoS.
However, the first step, to my mind, is to find out whether the community believes that moving away from PoW should be a priority (relative to the other options). If this poll indicates that a sizeable proportion of the community does believe that it should be a priority, that will help inform the Foundation’s decisions about what our next steps should be, and how we will allocate our resources to support the community in moving forward.
For example, we may commission some research or analysis of what viable alternative consensus mechanisms exist, and the implications and trade-offs of adopting them.