This post may come across as me trying to paint zooko in a bad light, and in bad faith. It is not. It is also not an “I told you so”. I am not coming from a place of bad faith. I am not trying to disrespect anyone. Im a bit upset though so sorry for the tone of this message
There needs to be an alternative to PoS.
It really worries me that zcash co has now realised they are trapped and need a way out, and that way out give zcash co more control. Why not move to an algo that is just about to be retired, like ethash, or at least an algo that can absorb the vast amount of AMD gpus that are flying about. There is hardware out there that will soon be doing a lot less if ethereum pos happens.
There are alternatives to getting your coin ruined in the change over period.
You can freeze (disable all but coinbase transactions) the blockchain prior to announcement, or at least checkpoint. Those miners will be holding zec, would they really want to burn it to the ground? The potential was there with monero. I admit this is basic stuff that wouldn’t work in reality, but there are other solutions. Is it in zcash co’s interest to find them?
(Your only problem with ASIC manufacturers is greed?)
How does announcing a switch to PoS stop an attack before the switch happens? isnt it the same problem? This has to be talked about, you cannot pull a surprise fork that invalidates hardware that may or may not have even been delivered. people are making financial decisions based of zcash co’s statements.
China is not a hive mind, but I see what you are implying. - a few large companies (not the pools themselves) control the majority of hashpower on those pools (which they probably own).
51% BTG was nothing. I feel sorry for the people that got burnt. But 51% attacks are not the responsibility of the dev team it is more risk management for the company that accepts/exchanges the coin. They are for your risk model, but I can see why zooko is so scared of them.
How can zcash co in good faith take 20% of all zec to be ever printed, but get it in the first 4 years then suggest, hurm, you know, it would be better to reward people who have the most zec, rather than the people who are paying to support the coin with their electricity bills. I am 100% not a lawyer but that can’t be legal. Wouldnt it unduly enrich zcash co?
To me, this is how it seems things have gone so far:
ASIC resistance - “well, yes we implied we would fork but, nah it is better to have hardware that can only mine zec”
PoW - “Well, yes we implied that the network would be supported by PoW twice. People who first bought consumer based hardware, then by people who bought specialist hardware that only really works on our project in its current state. This was to make the network more secure. After thinking about this specialist hardware probably isn’t right for us either, now no mining at all anymore, ultra secure!. Proof of stake! who has the most coins controls the coin. yay! founders rewards forever, we will only switch to proof of stake after the first halving though.”
Privacy - “Well, yes we implied that the whole point of this project was to keep prying eyes, like oppressive governments from being able to oppress their citizens. [what excuse or back peddling will come here? my guess it will be a combination/involve kyc, pos and tax]”
This whole situation just makes me sad. There are a number of solutions that dont involve PoS that I would like to discuss but it is like shouting into the wind. Everyone thinks everyone else is tilting at windmills.
Ive still yet to see how I can stake from a z address. link anyone?
Does the zcash foundation have an official stance on this?