Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[ZIP 233] Network Sustainability Mechanism: Burning #922

Open
daira opened this issue Oct 30, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

[ZIP 233] Network Sustainability Mechanism: Burning #922

daira opened this issue Oct 30, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
consensus Consensus changes, and errors or omissions in consensus specification F-transaction-v6 Feature: v6 transactions NU7 proposal

Comments

@daira
Copy link
Collaborator

daira commented Oct 30, 2024

Issue for discussion.

@nuttycom nuttycom added consensus Consensus changes, and errors or omissions in consensus specification F-transaction-v6 Feature: v6 transactions labels Nov 1, 2024
@nuttycom
Copy link
Contributor

nuttycom commented Nov 5, 2024

Note to be resolved during the editing period: #913 (comment)

@giddie
Copy link
Contributor

giddie commented Jan 6, 2025

Following on from the forum discussion, we'd like to adjust the wording of the ZIP to include:

Burning ZEC through ZIP 233 or other methods, such as sending ZEC to a verifiably invalid address, reduces the total supply of ZEC below the 21 million coin cap. However, this ZIP is intended to be implemented alongside ZIP 234 or a similar mechanism that would allow new ZEC to be systematically issued into future block rewards while maintaining the 21 million coin supply cap. Since ZEC is fungible, burned ZEC is not reissued, and there is no direct link between the burned coins and the new coins issued in future block rewards. If ZIP 234 or a similar mechanism is not added to the protocol in the future, then the result of burning ZEC will be a permanent reduction in the total supply to less than 21 million coins.

Would you like us to open a PR for the edit, or would the editing team prefer to handle it directly?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
consensus Consensus changes, and errors or omissions in consensus specification F-transaction-v6 Feature: v6 transactions NU7 proposal
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants