Not surprisingly, I have had questions asked about what I plan to do when the Z-Cash mining shares launch at Bitclub. Am I going to buy a share or shares? Am I going to use new cash/Bitcoin to buy it/them? Am I going to use Clubcoin to buy? Am I going to swap Ethereum mining pool shares over to Z-Cash shares?

That's the sum of the questions, more than enough of them I think and now let me move on the answers. And the main answer is, I'm not going to tell you any more than, yes I am going to buy some Z-cash mining shares and that is because I don't want to influence your decision. 

I will start with why I believe Z-Cash (Z-Cash mining shares) are worthy of consideration and then move on from there. I do feel for you all as far as crypto's are concerned because, on the face of it, they all look the same and it can be a very confusing area. Actually, come to think of it, when I say that I feel for you all, I include myself in that. I find it hellishly confusing as well so, to help myself, I established a set of guidelines that I try to follow when assessing whether something is likely to be a worthwhile addition to my digital coin collection or not and Z-cash qualifies accordingly for me.

The first of those guidelines is a simple matter of control and influence. I don't care how good a new crypto (digital currency) sounds, how good and attractive and clever the story surrounding it is if it is not decentralised. Z-cash is/will be decentralised. Ethereum and Clubcoin are also decentralised and so too, of course, is Bitcoin. You may be surprised that Clubcoin is decentralised.

You could be forgiven for thinking it is not but all the rules relating to how Clubcoin would be distributed were laid out before they started with distribution and once Bitclub have ended their free giveaway (and they are pretty much there with that) then Clubcoin, like Bitcoin, will only be available if you buy it or mine it. This means it is driven by a network and is not centralised.

You all probably know exactly what that means by now but, in case you don't, here is a quick explanation. Bitcoin, from the start, was set up as an open source computer programme that anyone had access to and no-one had control over. The protocol that actually produces the new coins works on a building block basis with one block being dependent on the previous block for it to be created and proven genuine. 

Every block of new Bitcoin needs to be confirmed by the "network" that exists to make this happen and each block is linked to the previous block in a chain (hence blockchain) and the next part of the chain, the next block, cannot be confirmed until the previous one is found to be genuine.

So the programme, once set and set off, did what it did, does what it does and no-one could or can stop it. Any change to the "operating system" would have to come about, could only come about, by consensus of all those responsible for confirming the Bitcoin transactions. 

The bottom line here is that no-one has an OFF SWITCH or the power in any way to change what happens to Bitcoin. No-one could or can or ever will be able to gain control of the Bitcoin protocol. Thus Bitcoin will stand or fall on its own merits and its value will always be dictated by market exposure/usage and its ability to remain viable as an alternate form of money. All decentralised crypto's work in the same way and must do to interest me.

Similar altcoins/digital currencies/cryptocurrencies have emerged over time and some have done OK and some have not. But all coins created and developed along the principle lines of decentralisation at the core have, at least, commenced life with noble ambition. Decentralised means no central place of control or influence and is the absolute minimal starting point for me. I should explain decentralised in another way. 

Some of you may remember an organisation called Napster. It was a site that emerged online devoted to allowing people to share music files with each other and download music accordingly onto their computers using a process known as torrent streaming. This was a problem for music companies and musicians because people could access this music without the artists and companies getting paid through the normal licence agreements. 

Within no time at all, the music business shut Napster down (no surprise there). Napster took the view that as long as someone had paid for the music originally, what was wrong with sharing files? This of course was a nonsense argument because it did not preserve intellectual property rights. Of course, 95% of the world's population probably don't give a hoot about intellectual property but that then if you don't have any, why would you care.

Napster made their nonsense argument anyway. In the end Napster failed. But it wasn't the nonsense attitude that killed them. Oh no, centralisation killed them.

Napster ran a centralised network. It had one central point that could be attacked, shut down etc. etc. and so that is what the "authorities" did. There are companies out there today, like Napster, involved in illegal torrent streaming of files, like Napster were, who are not shut down because they are not centralised, their network exists over many hundreds, sometimes thousands of nodes around the world and the authorities, at best, can only shut bits of it down. Those bits are soon replaced and business as usual continues.

This has nothing to do with anything except this one point: Control - the off switch - the ability for the ongoing continuation of "service" to be wrested from the core. And now, let's go back to digital currency. If control of the currency exists in one place, how can anyone ever trust it? The whole Bitcoin experiment started as "could it be possible to do finance without the banks or the Government?" Do you think Bitcoin would have taken off if Bitcoin was entirely in the hands of one man or one organisation, even if it was a very nice man or a company we all loved? No way!

Quick reality check, don't be shy. Put your hand up if you love being bossed around by the Government or you love the banks having control of your money... Now, out your hand up if you'd prefer it if you were being bossed around by an individual dude or a company?

This centralised/decentralised information has nothing to do with how a digital currency is created but that is important to me also. I must be sure there is a legitimate way of mining for the new coin or currency be that proof of work (POW) or proof of stake (POS). It can't just exist because someone says it exists.

Finally, I then need to convince myself that it also has an opportunity to become successful because it has some momentum behind it. And this is where Bitclub Network and other organisations with membership and following can play a very important roll. So that is my number 3 taken care of.

We have to be a bit careful with that 3rd point. There are a number of organisations out there promoting a digital currency that would qualify under point 3 - having the network to promote the currency - even if it is intentional rather than yet established as in, " we will be able to promote this and make its take up assured once we grow a big enough network". 

But that is exactly why I also need number 1 and number 2.

Yes, to Z-Cash.

To buy or not to buy with Clubcoin? Depends very much on your view as to where Clubcoin is going but it is going to be, understandably, tempting for some to spend their Clubcoin on buying Z-cash shares. After all, if you have 2,000 or more Clubcoin that'll buy you a Z-cash mining pool share. 

And what of the offer by BCN to allow you to switch your Ethereum mining pool share over to a Z-cash one? I must dwell on this a little. Without boring you to tears, Ethereum had a hard fork in their blockchain back in late July/early August (see information here on that) and, would you believe it, they are about to have another hard fork (see this). This is unlikely to be as dramatic as hard fork number 1 but it does, to some, show possible instability in Ethereum. 

Personally, I still have a lot of faith in Ethereum but I do have a couple of hundred ETH so I could be a little biased. If you run by the mantra that keeping all your eggs in one basket is not a good idea, maybe you would do well to keep 4 digital currency baskets or even more. If you don't and you want the best chance of being with the strongest only - well, I don't think anything I've said here is going to help too much.

If you want to know more about Z-cash then make sure you read Bit-Talk 50 and look at the articles linked therein.

You can get to Bit-Talk HERE