Quote from: ConstantinGR on April 13, 2018, 01:14:43 PM

I wouldn't like to exaggerate, so I wouldn't say the original Zero dev tried to fix zcash "weaknesses", but as Rick posted, he tried to tweak the algorithm in order to improve some features. So he modified the equihash algorithm by changing two parameters, and he also removed the 20% dev fee. The change of parameters, generated the following results:

Block Size 4MB | Higher Time Complexity X16 | Higher Memory Requirements X16 | Faster Block Verification X4 | Smaller Solutions 400 Bytes | (instead of 1344)

So far, mining operations for Zero require 25-30% less power consumption than zcash and mining profitability has been quite high for a very long time, even these days it is still quite profitable despite the low exchange price.

The following are only my personal opinions and a more formal joint statement will be posted here after some team meetings take place and we get consensus.

Regarding masternodes: Implementing masternodes is a huge leap that requires very careful consideration since it will alter dramatically the current balance, safety and stability.
It also means that we will need a hard fork and this complicates things considerably.
We also need to maintain zcash compatibility, since we will be getting free updates this way, and the upcoming September update is of extremely high importance, as it plans to increase the transaction speed of shielded addresses, this way making complete privacy available in mobile wallets and thus in every day applications.
There are other priorities that come first, such a new wallet, a Nvidia miner and one or more new exchange listings that we will try to implement first.
The above don't mean that we exclude the possibility of masternodes, I am just saying that it is not our short term priority.
As for Demarsac's "Machwave" roadmap target, I have to be fair and say that despite the fancy name, all that it was about is was to introduce a fork in order to apply experimental changes on Zero, without risking Zero to become a lab rat. For example, if we need to test masternodes and avoid any potential damage that we cannot foresee, one way would be to fork Zero, do an airdrop and apply masternodes on the forked coin , so this way current holders are satisfied and at the same time Zero is safe.

Quote from: Leodalat on April 13, 2018, 06:55:41 AM

Apparently a coin needs community support to grow, though Dev has left the coin and it still has the trust of the community to continue to exist.
What are the weaknesses of Zcash that ZERO will improve? Do you intend to use masternode for your coin?

Some of the special functions that these nodes perform are:

- Increasing privacy of transactions
- Doing instant transactions
- Participating in governance and voting
- Enable budgeting and treasury system in cryptos

https://coinsutra.com/masternodes/

Implementing masternodes will not affect the zcash compatibility, implementing masternodes would enable instant transactions as stated above, so you wouldn't have to need the zcash udate in the first place. It's not really a risk if the code is allready available, just look at snowgem, the first equihash algo with masternodes. They have a great wallet too you can adopt improve and rebrand. There's really no reason to wait or use a fork to test masternodes. You should ask the community what they think.