I’m not sure the statement of “currently owns less than 5%” indicates that it needs to stay below that threshold in perpetuity to maintain any sort of non-profit status (@acityinohio would probably know if this is the case). It was a statement of current status at the time of application.
My main point is that we are electing a Board made up of multiple members (not a President/Director) so if we were to add Ian then any theoretical Conflict of Interest would still be able to be kept in check by the fact that he can be overruled or even removed from the Board if the Board feels it’s an issue. If the majority of the Board were to be Zcash Company members I would see a cause for concern but for now I don’t think your call for him withdrawing candidacy is warranted based solely on him having been a Founding member of Zcash.
Also, based on my skimming of the applications of all the other Board candidates there seems to be a lack of hands-on Zcash protocol experience. Is it wise to push for having very few on the board that have a deep understanding of how Zcash works?
I’m partially agree with you, that ASIC resistance is not a simple task and must be some strategic planning, research, etc.
But, isn’t it what for 20% reward was must be used for already? How happens that other cryptocurrencies whithout founder reward already taking steps , but ZCASH is doing …mum… nothing?
Just to add to @Shawn’s clarification, there is no strict requirement that the Foundation’s Board to have a limited interest in the Company, however there is a requirement against the Foundation engaging in activities “for the benefit of private interests.” More info here from the IRS:
I am also working with the current Board on enshrining a Conflict of Interest policy directly in the bylaws, and if there are issues that deal directly with the Company, they would be required to recuse themselves in making those decisions.
More generally, I don’t think it’s a problem to have a member of the Foundation Board with some experience with the Company, so long as that is not the majority of Board members.
(and as an aside, I love seeing all this debate! Thanks to everyone for contributing to the discussion)
Do you disagree that the most vocally upset members here have been a gpu miners looking to further their own interests, despite the fact that gpu mining could actually be bad for Zcash (security, secret ASICs)? The fact is, we don’t know. That’s why I’m suspect of anyone that jumps to quick and convenient conclusions. It alludes to a confirmation bias to one’s own financial bottom line. As for the size of that vocal group, I’ve seen only a handful on here and most of them were new accounts. I don’t count migrant gpu miners who mine whatever is profitable as the core of this community.
@Shawn and @acityinohio, your point is well taken, regarding there being a difference between having some board members with ownership interests versus having a majority of board members with ownership interests. @root also brought that up a few minutes ago in the community chat:
I totally agree. ASIC resistance is not a value of Zcash, it’s at best a tool for achieving decentralization and inclusivity, which are actual values of Zcash. If we’re going to target ASIC resistance, we had better arrive to that through evidence and merit, not emotion.
ASIC resistant mining brings more holders of the coins which leads to a bigger and more proactive community that is interested in the development of the protocol.
IMHO this is the easiest way to achieve broader adoption with close to 0 cost.
I understand this is a controversial position, however I deeply believe in it.
You say “it bothers loud few”. But we need more loud community around, not?
I don’t see why mining with a GPU or mining with an ASIC would make any difference in terms of a user’s decision to hold or use zec. The difference between the two is a pure risk assessment: for smaller miners does it make sense for them to purchase an ASIC that only mines one algorithm. I think if users believe in Zcash enough to hold, they might just buy on an exchange instead of mine.
Just a reminder to not make personal attacks on here, but since I’m the one you were attacking, I’ll let it stay visible and respond:
I don’t plan to stop GPU mining zec. The vast majority of my hashpower does and will continue to come from GPUs, so that disproves your hypocrite statement. Keeping a gpu-only PoW would benefit my own bottom line immensely and would reduce the work to change my current setup.
That said, I consider it a failure of GPU mining in general that miners can so easily switch coins and leave a network (even marginally) less secure. With zec, the largest fluctuation of hashpower hasn’t come from ASICs thus far, it’s come from miners switching back and forth between Ethereum every other day. This behavior lacks the dedication to Zcash that I believe a miner should be required to have. I’ve mined zec since day one and continue to mine with GPUs and ASICs or FPGAs or whatever other staking mechanism will secure the network in the future.
Everything changes rapidly in this space, and I expect the pace of change to increase rather than decrease over time. My advice to anyone reading this, after being involved with cryptocurrency in general since 2012, is to become more anti-fragile to change. I’m more concerned with what is best for Zcash 5-10-20 years from now. The Zcash foundation will decide what PoW is best and until then we’ll just have to wait and see.
I too believe that a stance and philosophy on centralization/decentralization is as important as every candidate’s stance on privacy. Today, the decentralization topic would need to include whatever their feeling on ASICs is. I assume since they are running for Zcash Foundation seat that they are ALL pro-privacy but I sure would like to know if any were not.
A year ago, i would have made the same assumption about everyone’s stance on decentralization, but today we cannot make that assumption.
Hi everyone, there’s been a lot of discussion about specific and important issues. But one thing I think we all need to figure out is what the foundation does beyond those issues. What it does day-to-day. What it is we are actually trying to govern. This doesn’t entirely fit in with the discussion here, so
I shared my thoughts in another thread: Ian Miers: Board elections, the foundation's mission, and making usable privacy a reality
I’m interested in both your feed back and alternative proposals.
To my mind concentration of mining (due to ASIC dominance) and the stake (due to centralized exchange dominance) in one or several hands violates the genesis pledge of any cryptocurrency.
