Rebirth of BitcoinZ


#1

NOTE: I’m sorry to have created a proposal that caused everyone to get so heated up. This was not my intention in any way. This thread is now close and I don’t plan to pursue this idea any further. Thanks to everyone who provided constructive feedback!

Hey! So you may or may not know who I am. I’m a fellow member of the BitcoinZ community who’s been around since the first few days of this project. I’ve seen the community grow from nothing to what it is today. We’ve accomplished so much in this last year… We’ve grown to tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. We’ve built a great infrastructure beyond the blockchain – communication, wallets, sites, plugins and so much more. The best and most important thing about BitcoinZ is its community.

With that being said, there’s something about BitcoinZ that I’ve never really been a fan of – the immutable parameters. If you’re not familiar with them, they are:

  • max supply
  • inflation
  • only POW algo - we may change Equihash algo to other POW algo to prevent ASIC miners
  • new features are allowed to improve usage / scalability, but we will never change history (ETH/ETC case)

While I don’t necessarily hate all of them, I don’t like that they are immutable. Them being immutable means they can’t be changed. The primary problem with this for them to never be changed, they have to be perfect. They have to have been written with divine knowledge of the future – and I don’t think that’s the case.

The worst part of the immutable parameters is inflation. Because of how many coins we’re pumping into supply every day, it’s nearly impossible for the coin to gain value. From day one, BTCZ has been pumping out 12,500 coins every 2.5 minutes. That is a lot of coins being flooded into the market when the BitcoinZ community – as well as crypto as a whole still has so much growth to experience.

I’m writing this post to make a proposal. Before I do, please note the following – it’s extremely important.

  • I am making this proposal as a fellow community member. This is not a declaration of what is to come, this is a request for voting. This proposal has the same weight as any other proposal. Please don’t think “a dev is making this proposal”, no. I’m just another member. The community will decide what happens.
  • Please think about this. Don’t just blindly vote. Please put some thought into the decision and weigh all options. Don’t be afraid to veto this or better yet, voice any reservations you have about it. Maybe we can refine it to become better.

The Proposal

Due to the massive supply that is already out in the wild, I don’t think it’s possible for us to get the coin to where it needs to be in value. We want a cup of coffee to cost somewhere between 1-5 BTCZ and right now, it’s over 1,000 BTCZ. Even if we do a halving right now, we still have a supply of more than 2B coins out here which is a lot. To fix this problem, I’m proposing a few changes:

1. Create a new chain from a direct fork of zcash

The BTCZ chain is a fork of zcash from last year but the way it was forked was done in a way that inhibits the ability to allow github to track the changes between the two chains. For this reason, applying changes from upstream requires a lot of effort (and might introduce instability). I believe making a fresh fork and applying the BTCZ customizations on top of it is the simplest and most direct way of upgrading the chain while at the same time making the ability to stay up-to-date much easier.

2. No more immutable parameters

My policy is “The community decides what’s best”. Whether we do so through the forum or we work on voting through the chain, I think the community needs to have the power to determine what to implement. I believe some safeguards need to be put into place to ensure a small group of people don’t declare they’re the community and start making massive changes. What I mean by this is for example, requiring proposals to sit for 1-3 months on issues that affect supply, inflation, etc. This will allow the opposition to build support if needed.

3. New chain, new block reward, one-minute block time, one-megabyte blocks

I love the massive supply. I have no intention to change it – I wouldn’t even be opposed to increasing it. What I dislike however is the block reward.

With our switch to a new chain, I would like to propose we switch to one-minute block times, one-megabyte block size. Right now, our block time is 2.5 minutes with 2MB max block size. The switch to one-minute block times with one-megabyte blocks would keep things about the same. Please note this is maximum block size. The chain won’t grow by that much right now, but may in the future when the community is much larger.

With the decreased block time, we get faster confirmations. Instead of waiting 6 x 2.5 minutes, you wait 6 x 1 minute.

So what about the block reward?
I’d like to decrease the block reward dramatically to give the community time to grow without massive inflation. I’ve talked to several people smarter than myself and we came up with an idea that I think might work well:

  • Anyone who has BTCZ before this fork will be able to swap their BTCZ from the old chain to the new chain with a 100:1 ratio. This means if you have 10,000 BTCZ right now, you’ll have 100 BTCZ on the new chain. If you have 1,000,000 BTCZ right now, you’ll have 10,000, etc. It will take our supply from around 2.4B coins to 24M coins. When you consider the size of the community, 24M coins is plenty for now.
  • At launch, the new chain will have a block reward of 40 coins per block (remember: block time is one minute! If it were 2.5 minutes, it would be equal to 100 coins per 2.5 minutes)
  • For the first five years, block reward decreases approximately yearly by 10% each year. This gives us five years to grow the community. We can do it!
  • After the first five years, the block reward will increase by 16.1% each year until maximum supply is reached.

So what does this look like?

Block Reward Yearly Supply YEAR SUPPLY
1 30,000,000
40 21,024,000 2 51,024,000
36 18,921,600 3 69,945,600
32 17,029,440 4 86,975,040
29 15,326,496 5 102,301,536
26 13,793,846 6 116,095,382
30 16,028,450 7 132,123,832
35 18,625,058 8 150,748,890
41 21,642,318 9 172,391,208
48 25,148,373 10 197,539,581
56 29,222,410 11 226,761,991
65 33,956,440 12 260,718,431
75 39,457,383 13 300,175,815
87 45,849,480 14 346,025,294
101 53,277,095 15 399,302,389
118 61,907,985 16 461,210,374
137 71,937,078 17 533,147,452
159 83,590,885 18 616,738,337
185 97,132,608 19 713,870,945
215 112,868,091 20 826,739,036
250 131,152,721 21 957,891,757
290 152,399,462 22 1,110,291,219
337 177,088,175 23 1,287,379,394
392 205,776,459 24 1,493,155,854
455 239,112,246 25 1,732,268,100
529 277,848,430 26 2,010,116,530
614 322,859,875 27 2,332,976,405
714 375,163,175 28 2,708,139,580
829 435,939,610 29 3,144,079,190
964 506,561,826 30 3,650,641,016
1,120 588,624,842 31 4,239,265,858
1,301 683,982,067 32 4,923,247,925
1,512 794,787,161 33 5,718,035,086
1,757 923,542,682 34 6,641,577,768
2,042 1,073,156,596 35 7,714,734,364
2,373 1,247,007,964 36 8,961,742,328
2,757 1,449,023,255 37 10,410,765,583
3,204 1,683,765,022 38 12,094,530,605
3,722 1,956,534,956 39 14,051,065,560
4,326 2,273,493,618 40 16,324,559,179
5,026 2,641,799,585 41 18,966,358,763
5,841 3,069,771,117 42 22,036,129,880

As you can see, the maximum supply is slated to be reached in 42 years. This may be a reference to the meaning of life. :slight_smile:

image

If you’re a visual person like me, the following charts might help understand what this change looks like:

One key thing to remember is that there would be no immutable parameters. If inflation needs to be changed because the community has not grown like we anticipate or is growing faster than we anticipate, that is an option on the new chain! The community will be able to do what it needs to do, given enough support is available to pass the decision. The future is ours to decide with what it will be.

The goal isn’t to provide a perfect setup. The goal is to build a good initial outline to follow and leaving it to the future to decide what needs to change, if anything.

4. The coin swap

Anyone who mines before the swap will be able to mine more coins than what will be mined after the swap – for the first five years. With 100:1 swap, we anticipate to swap around 24M coins. We rounded the swap to 30M and plan to keep any unswapped coins in the community fund. This is not a dev fee, this is the community fund you know and have known for a year now. It will be placed in a multi signature wallet with as many signers as we can put into it to ensure maximum visibility and decentralization of the community funds. Anyone who has been with the community for a long time knows how hard it is to get donations. We’re hoping this gives us a boost to accomplish more from the start – pay people for various campaigns, etc. to get the word out and grow the community.

I’d like to make the new chain’s wallets incompatible with all others. By this, I mean instead of using t and z addresses which are compatible with multiple chains, I’d like to change them to boost the security of our chain. Functionally, they’ll be the same – we’ll have public and private addresses but using different prefixes and possibly using a different algorithm to generate the addresses for added security. To do the swap, we’ll build an automated site where you can go and do something along the following process:

  • Generate an address on the old chain, to send your coins to.
  • Send your coins to the address on the old chain
  • The swap system will calculate the 100:1 value, generate a new address on the new chain and send you the coins.
  • It will then provide you with the new address and private key. You will be able to import this private key into your wallet on the new chain and move the coins to your final address.

If that sounds complex, fear not! We’ll try to make it as seamless and simple as possible for end-users. We’ll give plenty of time to swap your coins from the old chain – maybe 3-6 months after the new chain goes live.

We’ll create a copy of the explorer at the final fork height and keep it available so people can easily see how many coins they had on the old chain, and how many they received on the new chain for maximum transparency.

5. Timeline

I would like to give a minimum of one month to vote on this, possibly up to three months.

For implementation, there is a lot of work to be done. We have to:

  • Create a new fork from zcash
  • Generate the genesis block
  • Apply all BTCZ customizations to the chain
  • Update the native wallets
  • Update the mobile wallets
  • Update the web wallets
  • Update the explorers
  • Update the website
  • Notify all the exchanges
  • Update all the pools
  • Build an automated coin swap site
  • Test everything 1000x times
  • I bet I’m forgetting one or 1000 things.

I think an accurate timeline for implementation is approximately 3-6 months, depending on who steps up to help.

6. Community, community, community, community!

This is my proposal to the community. Please give feedback. Let me know what you think. Please be nice but don’t be afraid to be honest. I don’t want this to start any wars, I just want to propose we take control of everything with our chain, update it, decrease the supply to something that more closely resembles the size of our community and gets us all excited about BTCZ again. I want to keep this proposal up for at least one month, maybe even up to three months to allow as many community members to see and think about it as possible.

I don’t want to create a new coin. That is not what my goal is with this proposal. I want to “move” the BitcoinZ community to a new chain. If a small number of the community don’t want this but the majority do, I think it would be OK to split into two communities. If however this leads to an all-out war between two sides and the community split 50% 50% then I will retract this proposal and we’ll go back to business as usual.

Again: I do not want this to turn into a war. If most people agree with it, great! Let’s get started (after plenty of time to vote). Otherwise, consider this proposal as rantings of a mad man. :slight_smile:

  • I love the idea and fully support it.
  • I like the idea but I don’t agree with some of the details (please leave a comment)
  • I hate this idea. I don’t want to change anything.

0 voters

Credits: Thank you to @cryptorex and @rizzman1000 for helping with the math and overall ideas, @Zebra for the graphic, @renuzit, @NinjaPickle and @icsta for peer reviewing for errors.


#2

Who from the developers is on board with this proposal? it is important to know. I see a lot of them helped you with this. max supply i would not change, asic resistance i would leave as a must. Those where the principals. Do you really think that after all this work a little marketing wpuldnt go a long way.


#3

it shouldn’t matter who from the developers is on board. We decide as a community and develop as a community. A developer’s viewpoints are have no more or less weight than anyone else’s.

I’m not interested in changing max supply. If people want to do so, that can be a new proposal on the new chain. It’s impossible to do that on the current chain because it’s immutable and it’s not part of this request.

I value asic resistance also. I have no interest in changing that. But I don’t speak with knowledge of everything that will happen in the future so IMHO, making it immutable is short sighted. For sure, we can make it something BitcoinZ stands for. But if the majority of the community wants asic support, why wouldn’t we grant them that?

I don’t understand what you’re asking. We’ve been working on marketing for a year. Many people have put countless hours into marketing.

Someone asked a good question in Discord:

If we don’t change the address format, you can use the same wallet.dat file on the new chain. My only reservation with this is that there are several coins using the same wallet hashing algorithm. This makes it more valuable for someone to generate addresses and check them against all these chains, making our chain less secure.
If our addresses don’t align to anyone else’s and someone cracks one of the other coins, ours would still be secure but I’m OK with keeping it the same if that’s what people want.
We would need to write a script that walks through every transaction in our blockchain and records each address and what its total is. We can then automatically send the 100:1 value on the new chain.


#4

I want to vote “No”, but I just realized that I actually cannot straightforwardlly do it without expressing a feeling (love, like, hate), which I think is not the case in the current situation-proposal-question. I understand that the current situation (price) could be really emotional but I think that emotions have nothing to do with such a desicion(s).

In addition to this, the way a researcher writes the possible answers in a closed questionaire can really infuence in various ways the answer people give biasing the outcome of the question. So I believe that a simple Yes/No would fit the situation in a better way. However, there would be many yes and nos as there are a lot of other major questions including in this proposal each of which could be another distinct proposal. An example should be:
"Should the current immutable system need to change (in order for the coin and the community to be more flexible)? (I tried to create here a small poll but I didnt succeed)

Also, there are some other reasons that would lead me to vote “No”. I have mentioned these on discord, but I will write them here too in order to be all together.

One of these reasons conserns the dilution of the current holders / early adopters by 10000% (100x swap and keeping the total supply untouched). For example if someone already has 21M, holds the 1/1000 of the total supply (not current). By this proposal its holdings will drop to 1/100000 which is a really huge and as I see it an unnecessary dilution. If this would be the future road of the coin, a fair provision for the current holders should be taken seriously into consideration. All in all people got into this community/coin because of what it is, focusing into stability.

Another reason is the exponentially increasing emission curve (blue line) after the first 5 years. Current fiat emission follow such curves and this is exactly the reason why Bitcoin has born. Inflation without a predefined mathematically approached total supply is the trick the current monetary system has used to take everything from everyones pockets. As another member in the discord mentioned, a sigmoid function could be a solution if this is the case.

Lastly, you mention in discord that you have no intention in creating another coin. But this whole proposal is about the creation of a new chain and a swap. So, why an implemention of such an experiment could not co-exist with the current project as a side chain? Why the current chain has to be killed (even if this cannot be totally true)?

In conclusion and based on the above reasons, each of which can be a distinct proposal, I cannot vote. I would have voted “No” if such an answer was there, as I neither hate nor like/love the current proposal. I just dont agree with the content of this proposal and the way that has been presented.


#5

I think your idea of increasing the block reward is hilarious, doing that will ensure the price collapses in the future… who would invest???

Let’s b real, the price is down because C-Cex robbed everyone (by not upgrading to 1.4) and has been dumping the coins… (on top of the entire crypto market already being in a correction)

another point,

Ripple/XRP has 100 billion coins (5x BTCZ) and their price hit $4, if btcz did that from current price it would mean 4000x return…

We need to focus on upgrading the usability of the wallet and making the main website a little more concise and professional,

good ideas the proposal has imo are: 1 min 1mb blocks, although i would say if we were going to the trouble of upgrading the block size and times we should think about future proofing and go with a much larger max block size.


#6

I am literally crying and shitting myself at the same time! rebirth of BTCZ? how about regurgitation. the falsehood of open transparency was fake in the beginning. 2 sets of devs, marketing teams fighting, devs in the dark in hiding, community and intentions all fucked up. if you ask me it’s a failed fucking project. and reading this proposal [I can tell you now this is the only thing that will potentially save the coin], but do you really think the devs or the people with shit tons of coins are going to hold? no they are going to sell out and try to recoup the fucking lost time money and investment. equipool you made a huge mistake. silencing me when all i asked is what is this shit with masternodes and holdings of your “clients” on equipool’s website. a developer should be fully committed and have some sort of loyalty, and all i said is it’s a conflict of interest to have a pool, be a dev, and control the entire blockchain. That doesn’t set well with me at all and has bad intentions written on it. It doesn’t make sense and it’s not truly decentralized if one person is down the entire wallet system is down or this or that is down. I voiced my concerns and they were met with prejudice. many wars were fought on this btcz front. skirmishes of different sects or imperialistic groups within the community. I mean seriously. BTC will have to go to 30k just to get the price up to value at this point. there’s too many influential “investors” that don’t have the best interest in the community. and those that have huge farms are using it for entry into better coins. Either or. the only way you’re going to recoup your investments and retain the value of the coin is to do something. as much as I want to say fuck you equipool you’re a rat bastard. I agree. with your proposal. let the people get out of this shit fest. for the “fork” and “halve” let’s massively campaign the shit out of it… do it in less time, and then hand the baton on to the next line of suckers :wink: Respectfully yours…
. :slight_smile:
Hairy Ballzack


#7

Yeah, that’s the expected outcome. Both the idea to re-start, and the outcry (that makes sense too) of the ones who want the current state of things.

I was quietly following btcz after our little “falling out”, but identifying the problems I will get rid of it as soon as the transaction clears.

The problems were many, but hey at least the artists were happy. Noticed the below image on Twitter recently and it made me cringe. Nobody is taking btcz seriously, not even the people doing those “artworks”.

DknVYPgW0AAHtE1

That could’ve been some coin. Sorry to see it die.


#8

price, price, price… Stop talking about the price. Read the proposal. You won’t find the word “price” in it, not even once. This proposal isn’t about the value of the coin, it’s about what is fair distribution. Is it fair to pump out over 81% of the coin’s max supply when the community is the theoretically the smallest it will be? No. How is that fair to the community as it grows from thousands to millions of users, for them to be mining exponentially less than we, the so few are now?

Stop thinking about the price and think about the community.

I banned you because you are nothing but negative energy. All you do is complain. Stop complaining and step up and do something. I’m sorry if I’m one of very few people who have stepped up and have given countless hours of work and am hosting many BitcoinZ resources – for free. If you don’t like that, then step up, rent some servers and host the wallet service, the website, the explorer, etc. Nobody is stopping you from contributing. All the code is on github: here and here and here and here and here. Everything we run is open source. If you need help, there are many – including myself – who will gladly help. All I see from you is negativity. I’m sad to say that the chat has been so positive since I removed you from it.

Yet another person who does nothing but watch and complain. Have you done anything for the community or do you only do for yourself? Stop complaining about someone else’s work and do better.


#9

@equipool.1ds.us Yes. Yes I have. And tried to do more, but didn’t want to mix :poop: with good stuff because adding quality content to an otherwise cesspool is NOT the way. That won’t help at all, which means the general whitepaper idea is flawed.


#10

Swapping existing coins 100 for 1 and not reducing total supply by 100x is like burning everyone’s holdings by 99% (100x). It is totaly unfair for existing holders. I am strongly against this proposal in this form.
It could be interesting, if total supply is also reduced by 100x.


#11

Do we have no more important work? BTCZ fork to 145.5 i think it’s not small work. Now again??? It’s take time, better spent time for different works. Fix plugins btcz.in, now is not usable… Finish BTCZ sms, announcement was 6 month ago. Where is final product? Ledger wallet 50% progres and stuck.
What about btcz.rocks, time to udate web site? A lot of unfinished work…


#12

no you pretty much banned me for asking a question then put words in my mouth… you are contradictory like in other forum posts you’ve said masternodes are shit and bad. then you say hey we need masternodes in another forum. then we can’t do this or we can do this. it’s all about loyalty and accountability. that is merely subjective to say i’m the negative one. when most of the community has silently fell back and watched it become a total shit show. but yeah go ahead run the coin into the ground some more. negativity… and i quote “when 1 sat” lol. . exactly my point. free or not you “provide” all these services ie. exchange, explorer, android app, the entire blockchain that you asked should we shut down(old chain). then leave open for bs. no one did anything for ccex, until way too late. ruining the market for the coin, then group tries to start another coin. honestly ? i’m the negative one? ha, I speak the truth. and for you to be the entire backend of this project, it’s controversial to say the least when you are not really focused on the project. no one is… you are too focused on masternodes, investments, your investors, exchanges, your servers, and your pools. That’s another thing. not everyone can fucking code but they sure as hell contribute and when they do. you run them off and piss them off. it’s always you can or could do this this and this… or here, here and here. no that’s your job. you claimed it. when legitimate people try to contribute you shoot them the fuck down… remember mr big shot? world champion sponsorships yet you’re like that’s a thing? are you fucking kidding you live in stock show central. multi-billion dollar industry rodeo, sports entertainment. right now we’re in a bear market the main focus of this coin is to maintain the blockchain and distribution of supply. get it out of the shit hands, freeze wallets and update them every other week during downtrends to maintain value. there’s your smart contracts. … discourage selling and encourage buying for maintenance. you’re not going to get a usd pair that will up your shit to extreme levels. you’re not going to be $50 with a 21 billion supply in the first year. I mean hell the first fucking year was an absolute shit show. … it takes 2.5 years for the next true bull run. and from here it’s maintenance and accumulation… if anyone wants the project to sustain itself and last buy the coin by mining shitcoin and buying btcz. otherwise. not going to work … regardless of halve or fork. so honestly i’m not contributing anything but facts. this entire past 3 months has literally been the breaking point for most loyal supporters.


#13

okay, here I am…

so yeah, I do think the current situation isn’t a great one, and your idea do make sense, but I do think we’re rather too early for that. Here are the reason why I would suggest putting this idea off till maybe another year or two down the road:

Currently as it stands, the coins has way too little adoption and far too focused as a “miners” coin. majorities of the coin that is distributed today goes to miner’s pocket and stay there, there is far too less usage for this coin currently. Thus as others have already mentioned, with implementation of your proposal today, it would drastically lower the holdings of the miners without a guarantee of similar price increase etc. and the fact that they wouldn’t be earning as much today (as an early adopter) as people who might mine sometime in the future, thus will discourage miners today, as majority of the people’s strategy for mining a lesser known coin is to wait for the rise in price/adoption thus they could comfortably make a profit and use the coin with rising adoption.
Thus the reduction of people’s assets currently will possibly lead to people leaving this coin as they consider “unfair”, as people perceive that their support of the coin was not rewarded by some sort of advantage over later investors/miners, as they come solely due to the fact that the coin is rising. Basically the majority of the reward goes to later adopters. Mind you, even if the hash rate increases in the future, it does not matter which curve you use, whether it be hyperbolic or sigmodal, there will always be a delay between the significant block reward increase and hash rate increase, thus favouring those that came at the infliction point, which I don’t exactly think it’s fair. thus I believe this coin cannot afford to do at the moment.

However, I do believe that it will perhaps work in the future of this coin. this is a hypothesis based on the model future which I will suppose based on the goal of the coin, which is :distributed evenly and widely adopted and used.
In the above case, majority of the coins which is distributed among the population isn’t derived from mining, but from purchase and usage of the coin. Assuming high adoption rate and high network hash. If the implementation of your idea takes place then, the impact of the change and the backlash could be minimized.
This deduction is based on the assumption that mass adoption will encourage spending of the coin, thus whatever is mined will not stay in the wallet of the miner for extended period of time. Therefore, when the change is implemented, the coins which have been previously mined will be already converted to some sort of wealth, and it will not hurt the value of the coins stored in the wallet, as the high network hash rate will prevent mass accumulation of coin and mining reward could be adjusted to meet the same value as prior to adjustment. (Basically though the reward might change the overall dollar/hash ratio could be adjusted to similar values, we don’t need to start from the beginning of whatever curve we adopt.) Thus in combination with adoption, the lag between the reward increase and network hash rate could be minimized, and would help us reach steady distribution of the coin as well.

As above…


#14

At what point do you feel the project is failed? 11 sat or 1 sat? seriously. let’s just promote it and leave like every other project. i’m for the proposal boost the value dump it and gone. what you speak of has already happened.


#15

Equal divisions & planned economy worked great for Venezuela.

Definitely the right direction :joy:


#16

If you build a good product, the people will buy it. This whole concept of crypto currency and blockchain, as wonderful and liberating as it is, is still mysterious and scary to the vast majority of folks around the world who have heard of it and I believe most haven’t even heard of it or dismiss it offhand because it’s uncomfortable for them to contemplate change, especially when that change is vilified by those it will most negatively impact as being some sort of evil. I am stupefied again and again by how few actually understand blockchain and it’s value. Many intelligent people are still hearing only that crypto is evil and underworld and useless and no different than a tulip. Messing with this coin now, and you are really creating a totally new coin with this proposal, will do nothing to advance adoption of this coin or any other coin for that matter. Blockchain technologies will take time to advance themselves and it’s very possible that using blockchain for money because of it’s at times wildly fluctuating price may well be the last truly accepted use for blockchain. We aren’t yet one year into this coin we all like so much, and we are all disappointed in the price value at this point. But, so is everyone else invested in crypto these days. The suggested changes to BTCZ will not change most folk’s feelings about adopting a crypto or not. As for the specifics of the proposal? The proposal to tighten supply now and increase it later really dumps on those of us who are investing now for the future as you are decreasing our reward for already done work and in the future the value will always struggle with an expanded supply. Your graphs promise exactly the opposite of what you hope for in price increase and price stability. The current structure will allow all the coins to be in circulation one day soon and they will find their value and I expect probably increase as max supply is reached. If you keep bringing more coins into circulation in the future, the value can’t help but gyrate and or decrease in the uncertainty in perpetuity. A double loss in my opinion. Leave BTCZ alone as it isn’t broke. The thrill of crypto took a hit last Winter with the pump n dump of BTC by those threatened most by it. The tyrants of international banking will continue to try to suppress blockchain adoption but best business practices will eventually demand blockchain’s adoption. Then a stable and reasonably fixed supply of BTCZ will make it a desirable option. Blockchain threatens tyranny around the world. Make no mistake that tyranny will be overcome only after great struggle and much time. I hope I am wrong about this, but mass adoption and price increases may be a long time coming.


#17

:raises hand:

I’m on board with it. It’s important to mention this proposal should invite a lot of discussion and should not be done with haste. As stated in the proposal, the community figuring out what is best should take at least 30 days, but personally, this should take more like 60-90 days.

There is a lot going on with this proposal. I’ll tell you why I’m on board with it.

The world is not ready for our “at least one coin for all” core belief

To say the world isn’t ready doesn’t mean it shouldn’t remain a project core belief / goal. I still strongly believe a main objective of BitcoinZ is to be used in everyday transactions. However, the onboarding of the world is barely taking shape. We’re (crypto) still being viewed as a speculative asset. Retail is not here yet, but when it comes we want to follow the curve of population:supply ratio. This leads me to my next point.

Our emission rate is not accommodating to the crypto population

Only a few percent of the current 7.6 billion world population is currently in crypto. The remainder couldn’t tell you what Bitcoin is, even though Bitcoin has enjoyed widespread coverage. I understand though, like myself in 2010 hearing about Bitcoin to me was just a science project. We’re not a stage that its being taken seriously, and so we our supply should curve to the world population, especially if we want it to be for the future of the world. There is no need to have 12,500 coins every 2.5 minutes when our end goal of “a coin for all” isn’t ready to be adopted. At least, not until there is more widespread adoption of crypto - in general.

Adapt to survive

Countless of times we’ve seen companies and projects fail, in crypto or not. The innovators are the ones who can bend and adjust to the external variables they’re surrounded by. I believe that even where it may hurt in the short-term, it fuels survival in the long term. I’m not saying the ideas that come about from this proposal or from discussions of this proposal should hurt BitcoinZ. I’m saying we need to be more flexible, but remain fair to our current holders and the community, including everyone that has truly fueled progression to where BitcoinZ is now.

I know of one company that pulls projects that people are still using. They do it because, even though it has users, its still not meeting performance indicators. That company is Google. We can craft models and progressive techniques from companies like this. This is an example, only. No way am I suggesting we eliminate anything without community consent, or eliminate anything at all. I’m saying lets be proactive to the variables before us.

EDIT: The only thing happening here is a discussion. Please understand this.


#18

Foremost, I think we all need to take a step back for a moment and give a big THANK YOU to @equipool.1ds.us for hosting all of our shit, and not asking for a dime. We all use the explorers, wallets, and code that this man has provided to us without asking for nothing and we ALL owe it to him to hear him out, and be respectful in our disagreements. It is the least we can do.

Furthermore, understand that what @equipool.1ds.us is presenting here is nothing more than a “Proposal” based off some beliefs that to varying degrees of agreement all the current devs believe would be beneficial to the coin long term - It in no way obligates any of us to agree with it or support it for that matter. If we don’t agree by an overt majority - it doesn’t move forward. PERIOD. Keep this in mind.

I will be the first of the devs to say I do not agree with the 100 to 1 dilution, and seeing as I am holding 50% of value of my GPU returns on investment in BTCZ holdings I have to vote No on this particular piece of the proposal out of self preservation, but I do understand the reason why he suggested this. Now with that said, I fully support modifying the block reward so that we don’t have the 7.2 Million BTCZ per day emission rate we currently have now. You want to know why the price is shit now? This is why. Daily BTC miners, mine our coin, and dump it to pay the bills.

I do support the suggested the emission curve you see in proposal. Why do I support it? because now we have less than 10,000 community members, and an immeasurable amount of miners that are just mining and again dumping for profit. If we assume that adoption will follows the same curve as Bitcoin with the modified emission curve, as interest in crypto and BTCZ innovation progresses, the lower block rewards for the next 5 years will put pressure on miners to keep their earnings rather than dumping, which should feed price, inevitability garnishing interest. then as price appreciates and interest begins to rise, people will inevitably mine regardless of difficulty, which will in turn drive up difficulty, and coincidentally reduces dispersion , and completes the cycle by forcing price up while at the same time checking runaway price appreciation by increasing coin emission after the first 5 years. This allows us to build value, AND adoption in a sustainable way that supports the 21 Billion supply.

These are part of my two cents, I will be posting more shortly.

Remember… @equipool.1ds.us is one of the few developers that gives freely of his time to ensure that YOUR investments are worth more than 1 sat. Lets stop raging towards him and support him in the ideas we feel have value, instead of breaking him down for those ideas we disagree with. Its the least we can do.


#19

@equipool.1ds.us You cannot devalue my year of mining and give me 1 coin for every 100 i mined, while also keeping the max supply the same… wtf wtf wtf…


#20

Great exposition @rizzman1000. I agree with your proposal 100% and as you mentioned I completely thank to @equipool.1ds.us for his very nice support to the community. Thank you so much partner!!! Your porposal is well received and the critics need to be contrustive.