Look @muf18 I'm not actually trying to be your adversary or argue with you, and I respect your opinion. What I am saying is that an 88% mining reward, with 12% going to development, DAO and secure nodes, is better for a coin's prospects than 100% mining reward with no specifically allocated funds for development. That's why ZenCash was created in the first place as the successor to ZCL - because ZCL without dedicated development funding didn't really work. It all then falls on shoulders of key unpaid developers which can work for a while, but is not sustainable. They stop putting in their time for nothing after a while.
This is my view. DASH was probably the first clear example to me of the benefit of dedicated development funding - particularly around coding, code audit, and marketing. I think we're all hoping ZenCash will be an example of this too in the coming months, to couple of years.
As for the tax thing you brought up, it applies to all cryptocurrencies. I'm sure national tax authorities around the world would love to tax the capital gains of all cryptos, their darkest fantasies probably revolve around that. At the moment, a miniscule number of private investors pay tax on their crypto profits.
I understand and sympathise with where you are coming from philosophically. I probably share your desire for decentralisation, for example for value transfer to be no longer monopolised by usurious banks. But in addition to certain similarities in philisophical outlook, I myself, and I believe most people in this space, also have a personal profit motive. At the end of the day someone who finds allocating some of the block reward to fund development fundamentally objectionable would have to make their investment choices in light of this.
What are you talking about 13% fees? There's a known funding model, set out in the Whitepaper, 3.5% for devs, 3.5% for secure nodes, 5% for DAO, which makes a total of 12%. This to me is the major STRENGTH not weakness of ZenCash. I also thought it was fairer to all parties than a straight up 20% going to devs as in Zcash.
What centralize solution are you talking about? This is a distributed proof of work coin with an ASIC resistant mining algorithm. In what sense is it centralized visa-vis other ASIC resistant coins? How are nodes centralized if they're private people staking their own ZenCash?
I think criticisms of ZenCash should be made, but ones with a basis, like the poster before you, rather than one's just made up.
What I like (more like liked - in the past), about this project was incentive and looking promising with new features.
Now it's looking bad, because - dev gone, fees (almost 13%) and centralized solutions, it wasn't meant to be another ZCash, but it's getting to this point - even praising ZCash, which definately isn't what cryptocurrenies/assets, decentralized should look like.
But seems like they are trying to push it that way. I will always go anytime with decentralized solution and open-sorce, community driven, than centralized, and fees driven. And I think that most of the real cryptocurrency users and fans believe and go with such solution, than centralized, nodes setup.
Decentralization not centralization is a way-to-go.
Ok, I was wrong, about 1%, so what? 12% is still a lot of when people don't want to give 1-2.5% for dev fee for miners or 1% for mining pool.
And as we count we see = 100% mining - 12% dev coin/nodes/dao - 2-2.5% dev fee miner - 1% pool = 84.5-85% of your mined coins.
And then taxes after sale the currency, so when we can only have about 70-72% of our mined coins... Everybody wants to be in the middle of our (miners) coins. 3.5% there, 5% out there, but miners mainly give you the strength of your network, I feel like taxation, so I will always choose the solution without taxation, or without fees. Just give me the address for donation - I will donate for your work, and not that you will have my earned coins. Zen is nothing more than another reincarnation of ZCash, just a little more powdered to look more 'open', with lower fees than ZCash. Nodes will always be in some part of centralized - it's not an obvious central solution, but it's similar to check pointing - it's based on more centralized solution.