Here’s what I know -
When it comes to predicting the future, there are times when one can see forward with high certainty and high (ultimate, retrospective) accuracy about an end state, but INSIGHT INTO THE PATH that gets there is for practical purposes IMPOSSIBLE.
That’s how the future creates itself, by zigging, zagging, and flowing over, under, and around the things that are impeding it.
The end state in this case (if we don’t screw it up along the way) is (relatively) wide adoption of BTCZ at some value-equivalent near to or greater than $1.
If that end state is reached (and all the current community members are invested in that, in greater or lesser degrees), then how important are the twists and turns of the path taken? Not so very important, I would say.
More specifically, WHO holds the BTCZ today, X years from now, Y years from now, Z years from now is of practically no importance so long as the holdings are decentralized, the coin survives, and the insfrastructure is robust.
Maybe all 21 billion BTCZ is emitted in 10 years, and held at that time by 21,000 BTCZ millionaires. OK, so what? Things continue to proceed from there.
Maybe all 21 billion BTCZ is emitted in 10 years and in the meantime all cellphones have become viable miners and there are 3 billion people holding an average of 7 BTCZ each. Again, so what? Things continue to proceed from there.
I say “So what?” (and that is a serious question that anyone can try to answer) either way.
BTCZ was concieved of, and is currently, among other things, the “coin for individual miners” (GPU miners, rather than racks of corporate ASICs). This is a good and valid thing to be.
It is, however, a different thing than being the “coin for the currently unbanked billions” or “the coin for all humanity”. I’ll call that FairCoin. FairCoin would be a worthy project for sure, but it’s not the project we have here.
FairCoin may not be possible using the current structure of cryptcurrency as it now exists. Or maybe it would be, but in either case FairCoin would need it’s own “white paper” and a significantly different approach than the “all coins created start as 100% owned by tech-savvy (and relatively well-off) miners” used today.
Reading between the lines, it seems to me that some people really want to turn BTCZ into FairCoin.
I don’t object to the concept of FairCoin. In fact, I support it. But BTCZ is not it! (and can’t be, IMO).
A person with just a single GPU card can today begin to accumulate BTCZ in whole numbers (rather than tiny fractions) by mining. That is a good thing. The current rate of creation supports that. A person without a computer at all, or w/o the means to have at least one modern GPU dedicated to the task cannot accumulate BTCZ by mining. That’s not going to change no matter how you jigger the creation parameters.
So, what exactly is the big point about “fairness”? Fairness to whom? Fairness by what definition? BTCZ as it currently exists is much more “fair” in the current context of crypto than BTC itself.
There is a risk of letting the perfect become the enemy of the good!
In summary, I am unconvinced (so far) that upside (in any sense) of changing the creation parameters outweighs the downside of demonstrably tossing aside fundamental (e.g. in the white paper) founding aspects of the coin.
Yes, the “community” can make such a decision. Sure. But the arguments put forth in it’s favor are very thin. So far, it seems to me that keeping the stated compact that everyone participating so far has bought into would be the best way to ensure BTCZ’s survival to realize its destiny.
I invite serious, detailed discussion/opinion to the contrary. Lacking same, I think staying the course is the best way to maintain and build the faith and stability upon which the utility of all currencies ultimately rests.
, you have almost everything said! I find your post is very responsible and constructive. Bravo.