Quote from: playingpoodles on June 20, 2017, 08:07:13 AM

But I think that was what happened, I think some people who had interest and involvement in ZCL thought, rightly in my view, that without a funding model this is going nowhere. I'd say the Zen people probably wanted what they saw as a 'fairer' funding model than Zcash. The result is less goes to the developers, and they introduced the concept of funded secure nodes. These nodes aren't just for fun, because they're going to have encryption, including certificated encryption, right through - so all comms will be encrypted.

Zcash team is well regarded, which is why I said so in my post. Though with the high inflation over the next three and a half years or so for both coins until block reward halving, I'd be slightly scared to invest in a $400 ZCash with $620 mill market cap. Sure, it was buyable for $30 a few months ago before the altcoin boom, and I'm not predicting it's downfall. It just makes me nervous, $400 is a lot of downside risk.

Quote from: btcbug on June 19, 2017, 12:27:16 AM

Quote from: playingpoodles on June 18, 2017, 08:46:35 AM

Because the whole reason ZenCash launched was Zclassic doesn't have a funding model to fund development, 100% goes to miners - in my view, no chance of competing these days without a development funding model funded with a share of the block reward. But this is my opinion only.

Quote from: btcbug on June 18, 2017, 05:20:34 AM

Why not ZClassic? It's like Zen without the unnecessary extras.

Lol so, "let's fork ZCash because we don't like the 20% founders reward... oh wait we need some money to continue development cause who would work for free?"

For fuck sake.

I feel the same way with Bitcoin/Ethereum and every other cryptos out there... downside is too big. Having said that if Zcash were to drop all the Nvidia Miners would be pissed...