changing t and z addresses to something proprietary and fixing the block times are very good ideas.
but changing the inflation schedule to penalize early adopters is suicide.
3 Likes
plz understand this proposal destroys all incentive for early adopters…
2 Likes
Rebirth of BitcoinZ
Hi all,
Problems I see offhand -
- " plenty of time to swap your coins from the old chain – maybe 3-6 months after the new chain goes live."
That’s majorly unfair, and will result in some people being deprived of their existing stakes if they don’t act fast enough. That should NEVER happen. If it can’t be done in a way that preserves existing stakes permanently, without a time limit on action by the stakeholder, then it should not be done.
-
The proposal is a huge amount of work! And all just to get back to the operational status we have already today. I think BTCZ needs continual evolution in security, usability, and functionality, not constant reinvention/rework of basics.
-
“I would like to give a minimum of one month to vote on this, possibly up to three months.”
Huh? Minimum of 6 months, up to 9 would be more like it. A change of this magnitude needs alot of time to be evaluated. People have lives you know. Someone should be able to be completely away from attention on BTCZ for even a few months and not be subject to blindsiding like this.
- I don’t think that problem is not that there is too much BTCZ, now or ultimately. In fact, I’m inclined to think 21 billon BTCZ rather than 21 million BTC is a brilliant and important difference in BTCZ’s ultimate favor. Do you want BTCZ to become a widely used currency or not? If so, go with 21 billon, as per the white paper, and then FIGURE OUT A GOOD WAY OF GETTING IT TO THE PEOPLE! Yes, miners are rightfully compensated for early foresight and for their contribution in making the BTCZ blockchain a reality. Most people, however, will never mine!! So how are they going to get BTCZ? Figure that one out (and there are many possible answers)!
I was on the cusp of offering a spot of free BTCZ to any/all of my Facebook friends (and may still), but now instead of working up that bit of promotion, I have to respond to this!
- If the rate of creation of BTCZ is too high (for whatever well argued reasons, assuming they may exist), then the appropriate thing to put up for debate IMO is that rate itself (and only that rate). Simply lower the rate of creation.
No new blockchain, no swaps, no perturbation in people’s holdings, etc. Then keep working on all the other good things that will advance the capabilities of the BTCZ infrastructure, experience, and value. Lowering the creation rate in the short term and then perhaps raising it up again when adoption is widespread enough to warrant that is basically logical.
- The idea that a 21 billion coin supply can’t someday be worth > $1 per coin is terribly pessimistic. Please reference the notional value of currencies in circulation today (trillions and trillions of dollars, euros, yen, etc.).
It doesn’t matter if a cup of coffee at some point (closer to now) costs 1000 BTCZ. If BTCZ succeeds the cup will eventually be 100 BTCZ, then 10, then 2, then one. This will take time, many, many years. Without that patience, the project will fail.
What matters is creating an economy where BTCZ can be spent. This community has done alot in that direction already, but I think perhaps there has been a massive under-estimation of how long it will take, and perhaps the current crypto bear market is rattling those who do not have sufficient experience to understand and weather such things.
–
I’m a major stakeholder now. I very much want BTCZ to succeed.
I’m willing to really listen and consider proposals of this general nature, but I think
a) these ideally will take place above board, by many people, non-anonymously, incl. face time
b) lots of time needs to be allotted for serious debate, and for ideas to soak in and percolate
c) the negative perceptual value of trashing the stability of the BTCZ concept over time (IOW, scuttling the white paper vision) vs. maintaining that stability needs to be kept very much in mind.
I think this proposal, at this time, as currently formulated, should be set aside. In it’s place I suggest a 9-12 month discussion that really attempts to engage people to think creatively about economics and value, it’s creation and distribution.
Rash action (as opposed to prudent action) in a bear market serves the powers that be, at the expense of the rash actor. Some community members are too young to understand that yet. We should not lose this wonderful project to rash action.
However, if the patient is bleeding to death, it is prudent to stop the bleeding (lower the creation rate). This idea, as a standalone idea, could be discussed first.
Thank you for reading.
- sj
2 Likes
BTW, the formatting for the above is ugly. If someone can see my intent and advise me on how to fix it, I would like that!
That’s why I agree with @rizzman1000, not to make the dilution proposed of 100:1 but modifying block reward. I am an early adopter too, investor and low scale miner.
2 Likes
Questions:
How do I register my vote?
How can I delete one of my own posts?
1 Like
Just type hide results and change vote
1 Like
but you asked investors who bought BTCZ on 180-200sat ? how will they react that they were deceived a hundred times ? this sentence ,offers cut off 00 , is a pure fraud .
1 Like
Can you show me where I asked anyone to buy BTCZ?
sound like I can mine BTCZ for longer period. I like this proposal.
I am also against the 100:1 dilution.
What I’d like to point out is that when something is sold, someone else is buying it.
Yes, some mine and sell right away. OK, so what? Someone else bought. The buyers are the new stakeholders.
The sellers sold out for small profit (always most traders do this, and it bounds their gain forever). The buyers are those who believe and offer their support (capital) for the longer haul.
There is nothing unfair to either the buyer or the seller when they meet in a free-will transaction.
The mine-and-sell folks offer a certain degree of support for the project (hash-power in the moment). They are rewarded with small profit. Done, and fair. The buyers are willing to wait. They are also offering support for the project (they paid the seller’s costs, plus a small profit), but they are willing to wait (at risk to themselves). All they ask is that you not steal from them (i.e. dilute them, invalidate their asset on the blockchain, etc.) while they wait.
Is that so hard? Don’t steal from people. Period.
Adjustments to future creation behavior are fair game. Stealing (in any form) is not.
5 Likes
ok, well then do not ask people to vote , and do not change principles of white paper , investors bought BTCZ based on white paper , and now you want to rob them in x100 quantity - this is fraud . Have you forgotten the story with Anthony? As you then defended the principles of white paper . remove 100:1 from your equation , and innovate in a new sidetrack your proposal , then it will be fair to investors , because nothing prevents you from changing your mind , but then you will get support of people ,you can not steal people who believed in you and supported you , those people who were at the beginning , people bought 1,000,000 btcz and not 10,000 btcz ,you can talk about the value of a coin in the future, but you can not just take and take away from people their hope . Best regards.
2 Likes
For the record, so to speak , with very slight edits for stand-alone clarity:
In the BitcoinZ Official #general chat, about the above proposal I wrote:
The proposal states: “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.”
I agree with this point as a point of theory and practicality. There is no perfect foresight. If there is no flexibility at all then the chances of ruin approach 100% in the long run, merely because of the inability to correct for unforseen situations that could be corrected for with flexibility but not without it.
Is the proposition that “we made a fundamental existential error by hard-coding in X Y and Z” and this error is much more easily fixed sooner rather than later? If so, paying the price in time and effort to fix it now may make sense. However, I see that as an entirely different proposition from “these fixed parameters are the wrong ones and we need to change them now”. It’s just two different discussions entirely and mixing them is problematic.
We need to separate the technical from the, shall I say, “ideological”. The proposal as currently written conflates these things in a way that obfuscates rather than clarifies. Each deserves a full and robust and separate discussion, IMO.
equipool.1ds.us replied:
“unfortunately, for us to make the immutable parameters mutable, we need to fork to a completely new chain. At which point, we might as well adjust what we need to at that time so we’re not creating fork after fork”
I then wrote:
Thanks for your comment.
I’d really like to see statements such as “for us to make the immutable parameters mutable, we need to fork to a completely new chain” accompanied by explanations (and not just one word or one sentence explanations) as to why it is so.
I also question “At which point, we might as well adjust what we need to at that time so we’re not creating fork after fork.”
Here is my rationale:
a) if there were never a good reason for a fork, then there should be no forks at all
b) obviously there are good reasons, sometimes (e.g. the fork to maintain ASIC resistance)
c) for a really good reason, the idea that “forks in general are to be avoided” does not apply.
d) for a merely “nice-to-have” the ideas that forks are costly, disruptive, and “in general are to be avoided” does apply.
e) if ability to change the current immutables as a concept is a really good reason for fork, because by first principles that flexibility is absolutely necessary for long-term survival, then it is worth doing on it’s own, as it’s own project, w/o perturbing anything else.
I ask the author: Are you arguing specifically for e)? If so, I’d like to see that decoupled from all the rest of it, both for discussion and possible implementation.
Put another way, I can see some people being in favor of e), but very much against the rest of the proposal.
I can also see at least a possibility that e) itself might be not very controversial (if well argued for), whereas the rest of it could be (and is) very controversial indeed.
And again I ask the author, straightforwardly - if the “community” shows as clearly against some or all of everything except e), would you still suggest (and offer personal effort for) e) itself? (yes or no)
2 Likes
Although it is slightly tangential, I’d like to, without getting formal about it (yet, anyway) put out this idea:
How about earmarking some significant percentage (tbd) of all the newly created BTCZ towards:
a) the community pool for use in marketing efforts, etc. as voted and approved.
b) distribution to non-miners (i.e. the public) per some sort of occasional or ongoing “give-away”
I mean, why should it be sacrosanct that all 100% of coins start their life as owned by miners?
Maybe the community, the coin, the world would be better served by a more sophisticated way of going about initial distribution.
Maybe some percentage less than 100% for miners would be better for everybody (incl. the miners themselves!).
Only if additional rebrand would come. We cannot be named BitcoinZ, while people associate us with some poor bitcoin copy. Surely we take whats best from Bitcoin and Zcash but let’s stay original with name. Zcoin or simple “Z” would be perfect.
M… “why should it be sacrosanct that all 100% of coins start their life as owned by miners?” Simply, because the miners mined those coins. There is no other way for a BTCZ to come into existence but that some miner mined it. Unless someone has been holding out something that isn’t known to all.
1 Like
not only miners , and those who bought a btcz on 180sat. you can be flexible in the future , but you can not take away from the people the present .
1 Like
Anyway. A whole new coin is being talked about here. Very little of BTCZ remains in this proposal but for the name. Why don’t you just launch a new coin based on the parameters this proposal outlines. It seems someone is trying to hijack a concept, BTCZ as it is, that attracted many and now turn it into something else since some have decided there is a better way. Many times in life I have thought I might be able to do something better than what was currently being done. Each time I set out on my own with a new venture. Sometimes I won, sometimes I didn’t. But, I never tried to force somebody to give up what they had already earned just to try to get them to support me? That really wouldn’t make any sense. Launch a new Z coin if you want to try another approach and let BTCZ alone. Let the market decide if it likes this proposal.
5 Likes
You really need to calm down and take a step back. Stop attacking people and collaborate. If you actually read the proposal you’d know that I didn’t say this is what’s going to happen.
It amazes me how rude people can be especially when they’re completely ignorant about what they’re arguing and yelling about. It’s people like you, with your attitude that hinders progress. Anyone and everyone is free to come up with ideas and share them. Instead of attacking people for doing so, provide constructive feedback or just don’t respond.
1 Like