Proposal to include EIP-3416 (median gas) in London

[ghost]

We are trying to simplify the EIP-3416 to focus only on the following, let us know if this is a good approach. Looks promising because less changes might be easy to integrate and less contentious:

• Median gas premium.
• Dynamic base fee with additive updates.

Is possible to add these changes after/with EIP-1559, so we can include the needs fields, so can be included in the following fork. Technically, even if we are not fans of the wallet changes, our EIP can be added on top of EIP-1559 as the two improvements: Premium Pricing and Base Fee calculation.

Thx (also tx to @mtefagh)

[timbeiko]

Thanks for sharing. We can discuss this on the call, but my feeling is that without sufficient context, client developers will not be able to think through this EIP "on the fly".

Could you please link relevant resources for people to understand the background behind this proposal?

Also, if you could join the 1559 discord channel, it would help discuss this async in more depth before the call.

Thanks!

[timbeiko]

Copied from discord:

@hexzorro reading through the EthMagicians thread, I really don't see how this is possible to include in London (as per: #294). This makes major changes to 1559, none of which have been as thoroughly analyzed, and would require massively reworking client implementations which are already in the final stages.

If any team working on 1559 disagrees with me, please let me know, but I fear that we'll just waste AllCoreDevs time by discussing it if we already have a consensus amongst implementers that this change is too large for London, and that we need to research it much more.

After the merge with proof of stake, we are planning to rework 1559 based on mainnet data, and I suspect the changes from your EIP would be best suited for this "1559 v2"

[ghost]

@timbeiko thanks for your feedback! Were were asked to remove references section from the EIP, but we can compile the references here.

Sound reasonable to re-work 1559 with mainnet data. We can run simulations for 3416 with 1559v1 data and show the improvement we promise.

thanks for your response, our pitch is that 3416 could give the same or more benefits as 1559 but with a smaller implementation footprint. Vis-a-vis, miner pricing changes but no changes to Tx Format and no changes to wallets. But we completely understand that 1559 could be in implementation phase so rolling-back that will be costly. Also, some parts have not been analysed in-length enough (the weighted median possibly, there are some simulations with main-net data but without base fees ). Although the additive changes in baseFee, I saw that is has a lot of positive feedback in the forum, and possibly has more chances to get into "1559 v2". My main concern is what is the cost of upgrading all wallets, gas station estimators and light-clients is easy to estimate and might take weeks or months to complete that in July.

References:

[1] Median, Mean and Other Fee Price Aggregators Simulated: https://hackmd.io/c6kyRNMuTnKf_SlolmevRg#An-improvement-for-the-premium
[2] Additive Changes in Base Fee better than Multiplicative: https://hackmd.io/c6kyRNMuTnKf_SlolmevRg#Path-dependence-problem-with-EIP-1559-and-a-possible-solution-to-this-problem

[timbeiko]

Copy-pasting from discord again:

Again, my hunch is 1559 has had extensive testing, auditing, etc. which took over 1 year and is basically implemented in every client at this point. If any of the clients feel this change is worth pausing/changing 1559 over, then I think we should discuss it, but without that, I'm very cautious of derailing London.
1559 is not perfect, but it seems to be "good enough" and meets the technical + economic criteria we wanted. Getting it live on mainnet will, imo, provide more benefit, and data about future improvements, than delaying it to get something that's incrementally better.

Unless a client developer or researcher working on 1559 "+1"s this before then, I'll close the issue after this Friday's AllCoreDevs and we can continue the conversation on EthMagicians.

[ghost]

Thanks for your detailed response, sounds like the wallet/clients might have an interesting opinion on this proposal too.

[timbeiko]

Closing this as no client developer has signalled they wanted to discuss it.