Centrally managed… Mmmh let’s see.
Seems a bit anti-crypto.
Tremendous trust you say…
Trust in a trustless system would be an oxymoron.
When Gary Lee was dumping his coins team members said it was the AWS miners.
When the hacker created Zcoins out of thin air, the team members said it was probably a block explorer bug.
When in the community vote, about the algo change from cpu only to gpu/cpu, remain cpu only started gaining momentum on votes, the team members closed the voting and went with what they wanted anyways. nvidia gpu mining! They kicked out all the small time miners around the world and all the mining was done by 7 huge nvidia farms in Asia!
I have been around for too long and witnessed everything.
I appreciate the work and the time they spend, but i wouldn’t trust them. not even if their mission was to throw my saliva to the ground, i wouldn’t trust them.
i would go as far as trusting Poramin. only him.
still centrally managed doesn’t sound good to me.
Everybody (each address?) gets a vote, those who really feel strongly about something can pay for extra votes that get more expensive the more they want to buy.
Funds that were paid for extra votes could be distributed among all voters (so they can then pay for extra votes if they feel strongly about something in the future) and/or added to the dev fund (so the governance can potentially help fuel development as well).
That is actually similar to what I am thinking but using Zerocoin or Sigma or Lelantus spends to spend to a specific address or smart contract. I still haven’t formulated the complete idea back. The concern is it would be nice to have the funds returned to the ppl who voted without breaking privacy.
I guess to maintain privacy eligible non-voters can be registered as ‘neutral votes’ and all funds can be redistributed to all eligible addresses equally.
To prevent funds from going to ‘dead’ addresses, eligibility can be defined as having a certain minimum and/or having a number of transactions in the past X days.
In the interest of decentralization redistribution can also NOT be allowed to addresses with a certain maximum balance, but this would take away their privacy by revealing information about their balance.
The key is to design a system of cents and voting rights that will help the xzc ecosystem continue to grow and develop.
Everyone has to comment, if there is a revolutionary creative governance model, xzc will once again take off to create a miracle.
How to divide coins? How to manage? How to develop? How to keep the system running? How to attract new people? How to vote? How to balance the power of money and money? How to balance organizational and individual interests? How to balance the relationship between old and new coins?
I think Zcoin will need to expand the one person one vote model to the whole Zcoin ecosystem with each person paying a minimum amount of fees to get their votes registered. This would mean Zcoin need to need to expand the Thailand blockchain voting model to the whole world. Each voter will need to submit their identities so that one person can only vote one time. The limiting factor is only the resources available implement such a system for Zcoin community governance model.
In principle I like the one person one vote model but I wonder if this runs foul of the whole concept of privacy. Should voters be recognized people? Does that make our coin more vulnerable to shutdown?
Yes you can qualify for more than one category. No way to prevent it from happening. But note that you can’t both host a Znode and use the same funds for Zerocoin And mining is a completely separate venture. So if you do all of these, I think you deserve to be able to vote.
How about the core team ( Reuben, Poramin, Devs, etc ) hash out proposals against combination vote of miners and Znode holders for consensus which will be brought to a public vote for final approval only when both camps have agreed on the terms.
Ultimately any proposals brought forth by leadership and those invested in the network will be approved or denied by majority rule
Ideally Zcoin is not reliant on me, Poramin or our current set of devs. I do forsee that even past the 4 year mark, we are all playing a role and I hope to continue on as well but in a long term governance solution, it should not be based on any one entity. Or it can be voted in.
Again my worry is that by having ‘representative democracy’ where executive roles are elected in, it makes it more susceptible to censorship or hijacking.
However I am unsure if Zcoin and our community is ready to go full blown ‘let the community decide everything’ just yet. Definitely not right now and hopefully in another 2 years our community would be much bigger and vocal and more quality members like yourself too.
why is there so little people on this forum? the community needs to be much larger.
You need to get someone who can hype up the project. ie - the true believers.
What I am worried about is the leadership of this project. It needs to inspire confidence and it is not clearly inspiring when I see worry. There needs to be stronger leadership!!!
And mining is a completely separate venture. So if you do all of these, I think you deserve to be able to vote.