So, here are the points about zcash that baffles me, and these are the points that I would like to explore for myself:
I see that this topic of “funding” is a real problem when it comes to zcash. Why so? I mean, Bitcoin has never had this sort of founders reward, or nothing like a fully-fledged company asking for funding in order to continue development. Bitcoin simply attracted the talent it needed. Why is zcash incapable of doing the same?
The zcash company has rebranded itself as electric coin company. Mainly, as it seems to me, it did that in order to reinforce the image that zcash is somewhat independent of the company that created it. And also, zcash foundation sprung up into existence, in order to further improve that image. Now, I am having difficulties in understanding the comparative roles of ECC and Zcash Foundation in the zcash project. I mean, still, the main dev work is done by ECC? So, what does the foundation do? Create awareness, talk with the exchanges, act as a respondent for government regulations?
You can take 2nd question as extra, it’s kinda unrelated to the topic of this thread, but still, I expressed it here.
These two points seem to add some unnecessary complications in zcash project.
In your second point you describe the current situation, the ECC is currently responsible for development of the protocol
This is what all of the Development Fund proposals are about, maybe keeping them on for longer
But the effective word there is Maybe which infers that logically they definitely will not always be the stewards of the protocol and that will fall into the hands of the Zcash Foundation and the community, they’re the long-term stewards
The ECC actually works with educating regulators and such
What they do is described lil more accurately in the “about” section
As for your first point I’m not really very well informed about Bitcoin development but I know that a fully shielded z2z transaction takes only a trivial amount of time more than a bitcoin transaction (2-8 seconds or so maybe depending on your hardware or less time than it took to finish this parenthetical addendum)
The existence of development fund proposals itself are problematic. It creates the image that there is an impending doom to the development activity.
There should not be development fund proposals, at all – in the ideal case. For example, in Bitcoin, there are no such things as far as I know. Bitcoin, as a project, does not depend on one big company to do the development work. Another example, in the case of Grin, there are only fundraisings for individual developers and for some 6 months or so period of time, and for very specific development work (such as developing a desktop wallet).
When I look at the zcash, I see that the zcash community is somewhat forced to finance a large company (ECC). You can’t expect such a community of many people with many diverse interests to come together and do serious funding for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Zcash development work should have been an independent, self-emergent project.
Thanks. I will check it out.
I can’t see any relevancy of what you wrote with the point I raised in the first point. The point is this: why is there such a centralized development work in zcash project? This centralized development work, to me, is the root cause of the problems in funding.
Bitcoin was a social experiment, but zcash was originally a project to create cash on the Internet, therefore, a team was needed, the problem is that the longer a project exists, the more it grows with business problems, but abandoning a team will simply slow down if it does not cancel the current operating time, therefore, as I wrote earlier, it is necessary to complete the first development cycle and get a working version in the first 4 years, possibly with drawbacks but completely working, which the team no longer needs, and make a choice, go ahead with funding or leave We are at the discretion of the community, will unite and finance then there will be changes, and if not then not. But business problems give birth to what we see now, because the project is not for sale for payback and there is no time frame, then it will be in constant development while people buy coins. Maybe I’m wrong.
No. Bitcoin is the project to create cash on the internet. Perhaps you should refresh your memory from the 2008 whitepaper, Bitcoin: A Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System.
Bitcoin was born on the internet. It has been developed on the internet. And it is still being developed on the internet. You cannot peg Bitcoin to a single point in the meatspace. Satoshi has vanished years ago, and there is not a single entity which can claim the sole ownership of the project.
Zcash, on the other hand, is a fork of Bitcoin codebase, and is easily tied to a dominating (in the sense of development, etc.) organization in the meatspace.
So, you say ECC (previously zcash co) is needed in order to get the zcash project off the ground, and without ECC there would have been delays in the project or the cancellation of the zcash project.
I don’t see that “necessity” as serious as you do. If zcash, as a project, has its own merits and is really needed, it should have attracted the attention of many talented cryptographers, coders, artists, etc. But what I see today is that the ECC has a great weight on the development, and is the dominant body working on the development, much like a (as people frequently say) science or engineering project for the ECC.
It is really difficult to understand your points because of your partial obeyance on grammar and proper punctuation rules. I can only catch glimpses of what you are trying to say.
I mean, what “business” problems? Zcash shouldn’t have been the “business” of a central company, anyways. It should have been a community project, with the community’s attention and efforts on the development itself, just because the project itself elevates the community and provides benefits to community.
Take a look at the Grin project and the Grin community.
I write through a translator, so illiterate, sorry.
Bitcoin is a cash book and not money, there is a difference.
Zcash should have been as you described, and even ECC itself in the answers said that they only give the tool and the community creates the tools themselves, which is why they focused not on wallets and tools, but on exchanges and communication with regulators, in my opinion, from the end of all tasks, this led to the fact that the community did not understand why the company and the founders receive such money, the product is not ready and the money goes and discontent appeared. Now the business problems are:
money
spheres of influence and power
market
this is not, and the project is being torn apart from within by 2 organizations, this was not supposed to happen, but it happened. And the further the more I become disappointed in what is happening.
bitcoin was the only game in town. nowadays, several corporations support bitcoin development, and marketing. zcash deployed breakthrough technology that’s not widely understood ATM. there’s very few people capable of working on ZEC tech in a competent manner.
ECC/ZF both have competent people. there’s also a couple outside devs. honestly, ECC should start poaching too talent from other devteams to increase this knowledge base. i would poach all top talent from unpaid projects just for the laughs.
So, the zcash community has the option of not funding ECC and move on purely on voluntary contributions? That would decrease the seeming state of emergency that funding proposals create.
Certain community members are advocating for the funding for ECC to continue development because its believed it will greatly increase the odds of Zcash achieving its mission which is too important to leave to chance, it’s an opportunity we should take to cultivate something that would otherwise not be possible
The benefits of the development already outweigh whatever sort of social discourse has been going on here lately
Besides if we don’t actually come up with anything that’s what’s going to happen, development funding will cease