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

Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 45 Agenda #54

Closed
lrettig opened this Issue Aug 10, 2018 · 143 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@lrettig
Copy link
Member

lrettig commented Aug 10, 2018

Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 45 Agenda

Meeting Date/Time: Friday 24 August 2018 at 14:00 UTC

Meeting Duration 1.5 hours

YouTube Live Stream Link

Livepeer Stream Link

Constantinople Progress

Agenda

  1. Testing
  2. Client Updates
  3. Research Updates
  4. Constantinople
    a. EIP 1014 Issues
    b. EIP 1218: Simpler blockhash refactoring. Looks like we are dropping this one unless someone speaks up, like, immediately.
    c. EIP 1283: 1283 is moving forward per discussions on the previous call and the core devs chat room.
  5. Three competing EIPs to delay the difficulty bomb and reduce/maintain the block reward:
    a. EIP-858 - Delay bomb and reduce block reward to 1 ETH per block.
    b. EIP-1234 - Delay bomb and reduce block reward to 2 ETH.
    c. EIP-1295 - Delay bomb, keep rewards to 3 ETH, change other factors such as POW incentive structure.
    There is renewed interest from miners to implement ProgPoW.

Different articles/links regarding potential issuance reduction conversation:

@pcbacon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

pcbacon commented Aug 11, 2018

Can we please talk about forking these ASICs again? EIP 958

@MadeofTin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

MadeofTin commented Aug 14, 2018

This was posted in the Magicians Forum and seemed pertinent.
https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/final-request-from-the-gpu-mining-community/1050/4

It also talks about adding EIP 958 to the discussion around the difficulty bomb.

@MadeofTin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

MadeofTin commented Aug 15, 2018

@lrettig when discussing miner sentiment (especially if some miners are able to join the call) I would love it for Miner Hashrate Signaling to be included in the discussion.

Specifically:

  • What if any changes to the protocol need to be made to allow this to happen?
  • Is this a candidate for an EIP?
  • Could the changes required be made at the client level alone?
  • Would miners like to see this implemented?
  • How would miners like to see this implemented?
@zsfelfoldi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

zsfelfoldi commented Aug 15, 2018

I would like to participate this call and "champion" EIP-1218 which would indeed be very useful for trustless light client syncing. Actually I would like to propose a slightly extended version of it where the same contract would also store the total difficulty. I will write a short doc about the reasons why I think this should be included too.

@5chdn

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

5chdn commented Aug 18, 2018

I'll be around to champion 1234 this week. I was sick during the last meeting, sorry.

Just some thoughts that I will raise before the call:

  • 858: this does not address the difficulty bomb at all. Unless someone champions to discuss this, we should drop it in this discussion. I just brought it up recently because I'm pedantic and this indirectly conflicts 1234 but should not be the focus part of this debate. it does now.
  • 1227: I have not seen a single voice (apart from the author) that wants to increase the block reward, so it's safe to say we go with either status quo or reduce it (1234). Can provide some references at the call.

Also, now that hybrid Casper is off the table, we should discuss 958 again (ASIC resistance), there is a strong community sentiment in favour of having this dealt with. Edit: Just noticed, 958 is not an actual EIP. Not sure how to discuss this properly then.

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

olalawal commented Aug 22, 2018

the three EIPs related to issuance are worthless unless they include an ASIC forking algo change of some sort. The majority of ether is being mined by large asic farms and bitmain in particular, when pos launches they will hold the majority of mined ether. For the good of the protocol they should be forked off if you intend to reduce issuance in a meaningful way

@cslarson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

cslarson commented Aug 22, 2018

@5chdn, 858 shouldn't be discussed because it's justification is not necessarily tied to the delay of the difficulty bomb? That seems strange when it's received community support through numerous discussions as well as a coinvote. EIP 858 could be edited to include a difficulty bomb delay or a separate EIP could be authored. Without a bomb delay the network would halt. Nobody is arguing for that.

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

atlanticcrypto commented Aug 22, 2018

@lrettig Please include EIP-1295 in this discussion (https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-1295.md)

@chfast

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

chfast commented Aug 22, 2018

Small fix for EIP-1014: ethereum/EIPs#1247.

@cslarson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

cslarson commented Aug 22, 2018

Since it will hopefully make the relevant discussions easier I've made modifications (pending pull request) to EIP 858 to include delaying the difficulty bomb.

@sorpaas

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

sorpaas commented Aug 23, 2018

A small update on EIP-1283: Based on work by @chfast (ethereum/tests#483), I added 17 test cases to the spec, with the two additional ones testing a slot being reset and then set again (https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-1283.md#test-cases).

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

atlanticcrypto commented Aug 23, 2018

Presentation on EIP-1295 can be found here:

tinyurl.com/ycjec3no

@chfast

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

chfast commented Aug 23, 2018

@sorpaas can you add the two additional test cases to ethereum/tests#483 ?

@nico9111

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

nico9111 commented Aug 23, 2018

Can we drop EIP-1227- Delay bomb and increase block reward to 5 ETH? It looks like a joke...

Edit: let me make myself clear:
Looking at the current price situation, if inflation i.e miners rewards remain the same or even worse increase, then that’s straight to double digits and then forget the network security, investors and miners’ profits. It’ll all go down in flame. Even Joe Lubin, super bullish on everything Ethereum fears about price going to unsustainable levels.
If rewards reduction means a change in the algo to limit asics then fine. Anyhow mining will end when POS is launched but what is of the utmost importance is what happens in the meantime. Do we let it all go down the toilets because we can’t make a common sense decision or do we act like rational people and let the journey continue. I’m working an a dapp to be supported on Ethereum and would love nothing more than to be able to continue my journey as well...

@cheeselord1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

cheeselord1 commented Aug 23, 2018

Here’s what we can expect from miners in opposition to the block reward reduction EIPs, along with thoughts on each one.

But I’m going to have to shut off my operations!

  1. Mining is a commoditized, highly competitive business. Without continuous price growth, mining costs will trend up towards mining revenue in the long term. Therefore, no matter if the inflation is 7% or 50%, some miners will always be at risk of becoming unprofitable when inflation decreases. We are not in a unique situation here.

  2. If miners shut off their operations, it will be the least efficient miners shutting off first. This lowers difficulty and increases profitability for remaining miners until we reach an equilibrium. It's perfectly normal for the least-efficient miners to reach a point where they must upgrade their hardware/operational efficiency or risk becoming unprofitable. This is normal.

  3. Based on historical data, reduction in block reward has a very small effect on hashrate. (source: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlTEyKBV4AERGtB.jpg:large). If a miner does need to shut down because of a reduction in block reward with Constantinople, that means they were probably in the bottom few percent of miners by efficiency.

This is catching us completely by surprise!
The difficulty bomb is hard-coded into the protocol, which would have gradually decreased mining revenues in the status quo. Last year, the difficulty bomb delay was coupled with a corresponding reduction in per-block-reward. A reduction in block reward with Constantinople is not unexpected news.

Ethereum hashrate will plummet, causing the network to be vulnerable to attacks!
Based on historical data, reduction in block reward has a very small effect on hashrate. (source: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlTEyKBV4AERGtB.jpg:large). Hashrate is currently well over 3x what is was at this time last year.

Bitmain will control the network if we decrease inflation, because ASICS
There’s no evidence of this. The Antminer E3 is marginally more efficient than the 1080 Ti in terms of hashes per unit electricity. Also, Bitmain has little to no ETH on their balance sheet according to their IPO docs. Yes, the new (not yet shipped/verified) Innosilicon A10 may be more efficient per hash than the 1080 ti but is also well over $5000 USD. And the NVIDIA 2080 Ti is also coming in September. Overall, this is not yet a major threat to the network and shouldn’t preclude a reward reduction at this time. There will always be competing hardware, and some people will always have access to better hardware than others. Though I do agree that it may be worth adding additional ASIC resistance into the protocol (but I’m not too informed on the tradeoffs to consider in that decision)

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

atlanticcrypto commented Aug 23, 2018

Based on historical data, reduction in block reward has a very small effect on hashrate. (source: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlTEyKBV4AERGtB.jpg:large). If a miner does need to shut down because of a reduction in block reward with Constantinople, that means they were probably in the bottom few percent of miners by efficiency.

Ethereum hashrate will plummet, causing the network to be vulnerable to attacks!
Based on historical data, reduction in block reward has a very small effect on hashrate. (source: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlTEyKBV4AERGtB.jpg:large). Hashrate is currently well over 3x what is was at this time last year.

You cannot use a scenario with a coincident price surge as supporting evidence. What would have happened if price had dropped? What would have happened if price had stayed the same?

If your only historical reference is an upward sloping trajectory - it's not usable for scenario analysis.

@cheeselord1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

cheeselord1 commented Aug 23, 2018

You cannot use a scenario with a coincident price surge as supporting evidence. What would have happened if price had dropped? What would have happened if price had stayed the same?

If your only historical reference is an upward sloping trajectory - it's not usable for scenario analysis.

Look at the dates from 5/9 to now. Block rewards have dropped and hashrate has continued increasing. There's no period in history where a block reward has ever caused a massive decrease in hashrate. None. In all cases the hashrate reduction has been small and temporary. Would love to see data supporting otherwise.

It just doesn't make sense to say that block reward reduction from $17.5M/day to $10M/day coincides with a +5% increase in hashrate but another drop to $6.6M/day (what it would be at 2 ETH/block assuming no price change) would cause a massive, network-threatening drop in hashrate. Its just conjecture.

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

atlanticcrypto commented Aug 23, 2018

Block rewards haven't dropped - total issuance has dropped due to a reduction in Uncle rates - partially driven by a reduction in network throughput. Reduce the headline Block Reward and I almost guarantee you those Uncle rates are going to skyrocket.

What are the medium term purchasing power implications of ETH if hashrate takes a large step down and ASICs become a larger portion of the network composition (which is a result of reducing the Block Reward directly)?

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

atlanticcrypto commented Aug 23, 2018

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QSRTTPqmga3OOniGpQLtMqEahAHxESxMlfWN9v1AI2E/edit?usp=sharing

This shows mining margins net of electricity cost on a daily basis for a GPU and ASIC miner at current network hashrate and price.

As the headline Block Reward is reduced, the network ratio of ASIC to GPU will increase, both instantaneously as GPUs are priced out, as well as over time as the ASIC is significantly more economic in a low price environment. You can see from the waterfall sheet that high electricity price GPU miners (typically hobbyists, the truly decentralized) will be quickly priced out.

As is widely accepted, as ASICs become a larger portion of network composition, the network will theoretically become more centralized.

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

olalawal commented Aug 23, 2018

No one truly belives bitmain is not hashing away in secret with thousands of thier E3 miners right? look at what happened with monero, they denied that they had secret mining farms but once monero announced thier fork Bitmain and other asic companies suddenly had cryptonite asics for sale.

And bitmain is not alone , there are lots of asic companies that do not sell gear to the public as well.

Again reducing issuance without a corresponding algo change to at the very least find out the REAL gpu and decentralized etherum hash rate is a half ass solution.

Ethier do both or leave it alone

@Souptacular

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Souptacular commented Aug 23, 2018

Hey all!

Tomorrow is the meeting and one of the agenda topics is potential issuance reduction. I have invited a number of guest participants to explain their opinion.
This includes:

  • a large mining pool.
  • a statement from the largest mining pool (pasted below).
  • a few smaller miners.
  • 2 Redditors in favor of an issuance reduction.
    This is in addition to the normal participants and core developers.

I sent an e-mail to these participants and will re-post it here for the sake of transparency:

Thank you for participating in the All Core Devs call tomorrow to discuss issuance reduction. It means a lot to get different perspectives from different stakeholders in the ecosystem.

The meeting starts at 10AM US Eastern Time, 14:00 UTC (https://savvytime.com/converter/gmt-to-germany-berlin-united-kingdom-london-ny-new-york-city-ca-san-francisco-china-shanghai-japan-tokyo/2pm).

The agenda for the meeting is located here: #54

Here is how I imagine things going down:

  1. We discuss agenda items 1-4.
  2. Agenda item 5 is issuance reduction. I will have each participant involved in the discussion quickly introduce themselves and which EIP they support (if any). Please keep your intro to under 30 seconds.
  3. We will first discuss if there should be a reduction in issuance at all.
  4. We will use rough consensus to determine if there should be a reduction. If so we will discuss how much of a reduction.

Here is where I think things stand right now. Miners seem to care more about implementing a new PoW algorithm in order to disable ASICs from mining on the network. There may be able to be a sort of compromise between issuance reduction and implementation of a new PoW algortihm such as ProgPoW (https://github.com/ifdefelse/ProgPOW#progpow---a-programmatic-proof-of-work). The timing of such a change is still up in the air, but as it stands getting it into Constantinople seems unlikely due to our timeline to prevent block times from increasing drastically. All of the above is speculation, but something to keep in mind.

Here is the statement from Ethermine mining pool:

We have reached out to our miners and from their response it is clear that the most important point for them is to include a PoW change to obsolescence ASICS. Regarding the block reward, their opinion is somewhat ambivalent, some prefer an increase (obviously), some argue for it to remain the same and a small fraction wants it to be reduced. Regarding the difficulty bomb most of the argue for a delay and no complete removal. This is also the position Ethermine will take as a proxy for our miners.

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

olalawal commented Aug 23, 2018

https://github.com/aionnetwork/aion_miner/wiki/Aion-equihash_210_9--specification-and-migration-guide.

Aion is an Erc20 token and they have forked to a unique specification of Equihash , although i would prefer the Devs to pursue Cryptonite variant 2 , since Ethereum has been traditionally an Amd heavy algorithm similar to monero.

monero-project/monero#4218

cn v 2 also will use far leas power thab the existing dagger algorithm and also provide much better resistance to fpgas as well.

@cheeselord1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

cheeselord1 commented Aug 23, 2018

No one truly belives bitmain is not hashing away in secret with thousands of thier E3 miners right? look at what happened with monero, they denied that they had secret mining farms but once monero announced thier fork Bitmain and other asic companies suddenly had cryptonite asics for sale.

This is a conspiracy theory that has been proven false. Bitmain released its IPO investor docs last week. Their share of revenue from mining operations is small and shrinking (<10%). Nearly all their revenue is from selling mining equipment. Unless you think they are lying to their investors....

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

olalawal commented Aug 23, 2018

proven false by who? Bitmain is a chinese company no one except a few insiders truly knows what is really on thier books.

Even if they are not mining directly as they claim I would expect they have some subsidaries not linked directly to the parent that they have sold thousands of Asics to.

Remeber the hash rate spikes of oct 2017 and January 2018 , were all in times of extreme gpu shortages. A basic brand rx580 was selling for $700 , A nvidia 1070ti was at $900 and all retailers were limiting sales to 1 gpu per month in somecases or 1 of any brand per order.

yet the hashrate went up that month from 200k if i remeber to 240k

No one could sell that many gpus at the time. The october jump was even a worse scenario.... gpus were basically unavailable

to the point larger farms were renting entire aircraft to buy directly from the source.

In that case the hash rate went from 90k to 150k in two months.

If you cant put two and two together still , you must work for an Asic manufacturer lol

@OhGodAGirl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

OhGodAGirl commented Aug 23, 2018

I am tickled pink to see a resurgance in ProgPoW interest. Know that if the Ethereum community decides to adopt ProgPoW, they will have the full support of IfDefElse, SQRL (http://squirrelsresearch.com/) and Mineority (https://mineority.io/) behind them, and our assistance in implementation in consensus level code.

We support decentralized hardware, and decentralized mining, first and foremost.

@DennisBPeterson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

DennisBPeterson commented Aug 23, 2018

This paper analyzing attack scenarios on Ethereum's proof of work is probably relevant:

https://fc18.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/bitcoin18-final17.pdf

According to the paper, a 51% attack via AWS rentals would cost $1 million/hr, and a bribery attack would only be $125K/hr assuming miners are susceptible.

@johnEth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

johnEth commented Aug 24, 2018

We need a 1.5 to 2Eth per block reduction tomorrow or it could be disastrous for this whole ecosystem.

When they did not make a decision two weeks ago we slid from $515 to now $273. If the core dev doesn't reduce the inflation the market will do it for them. This whole crypto space is 20% of what it was when we were dishing out 3Eth / block. The market will just not allow the miners to profit at a tune of $3,000,000,000 in mining awards. It is absolutely wasteful and irresponsible. The market is 20% what it was in Jan so miners should also receive 20% or .6 Eth/block at this point to equal the same decline that holders and developers have to bear.

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

olalawal commented Aug 24, 2018

There is basically zero profit right now for normal gpu miners , The majority of the inflatonary eth you are so worried about is going to large asic mega farms. Dropping the issuance with no algo change basically seeds the entire pow network to them and thier Ilk.

No sane proposal would advocate for this

Lol if you think its bad for the holders of eth imgine the pain for miners , 20 percent less value of the mined asset and a 30 percent increase in the global hashrate as the sugar on top.

Most miners I know have already quit

@johnEth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

johnEth commented Aug 24, 2018

Yes, there are entirely way too many miners at this stage. A tsunami of miners flowed in back in January when this space was overheating. Now that this space has declined 80% to 90%, unfortunately, this space cannot support a billion miners anymore. What can I say? No one said life was fair. We all suffering here not just miners. No one has $3,000,000,000 to give to a billion miners anymore.

Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. It's like pulling a cavity tooth. Yes, it hurts for a day but then you come out on the other end and you get better health afterward.

Trust me as an economist, once Eth price starts to go back up miners will be happy again.

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

atlanticcrypto commented Aug 27, 2018

@nico9111 With that comment and tact I will no longer respond to you.

@nico9111

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

nico9111 commented Aug 27, 2018

I say things as they are. Truth can hurt sometimes but is very much needed. Bye

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

atlanticcrypto commented Aug 27, 2018

Part 2 - Our discussion of the Purchasing Power of ETH and the deflationary nature of ETH's Proof of Work system.

https://medium.com/@brianventuro/eth-issuance-part-2-deflation-13775c651a42

@nico9111

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

nico9111 commented Aug 27, 2018

@Snuff

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

Snuff commented Aug 28, 2018

Hi everyone,

I wrote an article on this issue. Join the discussion!
https://medium.com/@whalesburg/ethereum-block-reward-suppression-part-1-90ed04475786

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

MoneroCrusher commented Aug 28, 2018

@Snuff How can you say ASICs are only 10% of the network? I can also say it's 60% of the network. Both are opinions.
Actually let me show you some arguments supporting my claim for ASICs making up ~40% of the network:
According to your own article you say $1.7 billion (in GPUs) were invested from September to March. Yes, it would have cost $1.7B in GPUs if the hashrate came solely from GPUs, but it didn't.

According to Jon Peddie research ( source: https://www.jonpeddie.com/press-releases/gpu-market-declined-seasonally-in-q4-cryptocurrency-provides-smaller-offset) a total of 3 million GPUs, worth $776m were sold to miners in 2017 by both manufacturers.
In Q1 2018 GPU sales went down by -10% compared to Q4 2017 (source: https://www.jonpeddie.com/press-releases/gpu-market-increased-year-to-year-by-3.4/).
And according to this article (https://www.ccn.com/declining-gpu-sales-to-cryptocurrency-miners-healthy-amd-ceo/), AMD and Nvidia both confirm sales of $165m and $289m to miners, or $454m for Q1 2018. Amd reported sales of GPUs to miners in Q2 2018 to be $65m (https://www.coindesk.com/amd-sees-q2-drop-in-gpu-sales-to-crypto-miners/).

So now we can do some math: If $454m worth of GPUs were sold to miners in Q1 2018, and it was down 10% from Q4 2017, then during Q4 2017 approximately $500m worth of GPUs were sold to crypto miners or a total of $954m worth of GPUs in Q4/17-Q1/18.
If we take a RX 570 as a benchmark (doing 30 Mh/s) and say it sold for $300 (that's a low price for a Q4 2017 RX 570), then the hashrate should have increased by 95 TH/s.
From the 1st of October to the 1st of April 2018 (Q4-Q1) the network hashrate rose by over 160TH/s.

Now what about the rest of 2017? According to our numbers, $276m worth of GPUs should have sold during that timeframe to miners (Q1 virtually nothing, because crypto wasn't hyped back then, and then it slowly rose during Q2 and at the latest by Q3 people were crazy for GPUs and crypto).

At the start of 2017 the network hashrate for Ethereum was 5.96 TH/s (https://bitinfocharts.com/de/comparison/ethereum-hashrate.html). Therefore by the end of Q1 2018, we should have had a total network hashrate of $776m+$454m/$250 per RX 570 = 4'920'000 RX 570 or 147.6 TH/s. We had 110 TH/s more than that by end of Q1 2018.

Where did that come from? Yes, probably Bitmain and other ASIC manufacturers (as was also evident in Bitmain secretly mining Monero and owning over 80% of the hashrate).
So the network hashrate of Ethereum as of this moment is more likely to be 35-45% ASICs, according to my estimations. Open for debate.

@nico9111

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

nico9111 commented Aug 28, 2018

Carbonvote https://www.etherchain.org/coinvote/poll/298
Almost 100k ETH participation and 78% approval for EIP-858 followed by EIP-1234

The community is voting!

@salanki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

salanki commented Aug 28, 2018

With 100 votes it's quite a small sample. Since carbonvotes are weighted by amount of ETH someone has it doesn't necessarily represent understanding of network security and long term economic policy. It only represents "I have a lot of ETH, I don't want anyone else to get new ETH so I can sell mine for a lot of $$$".

As earlier commented, the poll doesn't include a PoW change nor does it include an option for EIP-1295. At least it should be updated to reflect the different options that people actually want.

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

atlanticcrypto commented Aug 28, 2018

@salanki how dare you use logic. i'm going to post a reddit thread about you being a terrible human and shackling baby kittens to a one lane highway divider.

@nico9111

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

nico9111 commented Aug 28, 2018

Haha lol @atlanticcrypto the master engineer PHD of space and science
@salanki a weighted vote is still a vote. 100k eth has been voted. It’s an economic reality that voters with more at stake have the right for a bigger vote. I’m not saying it’s the best but it also can be much argued that a non-weighted vote would be unfair.
Secondly, this is a vote that the community is voting upon. Constantinople is coming up and we need to have something ready. If you wish to propose for a vote that makes more sense for you, be my guest. Nobody’s going to do it for you. If you don’t, you can’t complain. If the current proposal doesn’t include anything about asic resistance, maybe is because it might not be needed. I didn’t create this vote.
In my opinion, EIP-1234 would be best and if the pill can go easier with asic resistance, so be it as long as the core dev can implement it into the update (that I can’t say...)

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

MoneroCrusher commented Aug 28, 2018

@nico9111 so 0.1% of ETH holders should decide for everyone?
In my opinion ASIC fork off + reduction from 3 ETH to 2 ETH would be a good solution for everyone, the network stays secure + is more decentralized & at same time issuance is decreased by 33%.

@nico9111

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

nico9111 commented Aug 28, 2018

@MoneroCrusher Decentralized governance is a hard thing to manage but we have tools and etherchain carbon vote is a good one. I agree it needs to better managed i.e how many are not voting because they think they’ll have to share their private keys. So yes more education is needed but as time goes by we need some result and the clock is ticking. If you don’t agree with this vote because you think it doesn’t represent the community then you’re welcome to offer solutions.

@salanki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

salanki commented Aug 28, 2018

I wonder how people would like if we changed the way democratic voting works in parliament elections to give people with more in their bank accounts more votes.

Without verified identity it's hard to make a better anonymous voting system, that is for sure.

@nico9111

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

nico9111 commented Aug 28, 2018

@salanki, it’s called lobbying. At least with the blockchain only the owner of a wallet can vote so easy to verify the “being part of the community” aspect. One of the proposal I have is that for each and every vote proposals, there’s one option that always says “I don’t agree with this vote”. If this last option wins, the entirety of the vote is nullified. What can be challenging is the vote proposal step. I feel a proposal needs to be promoted and agreed by a mininum number of community members, pretty much like for presidential election where a list of candidates is proposed and only a few move on to the actual election.

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

olalawal commented Aug 29, 2018

Again the little guy gets screwed , failure to fork off the corporate ASIC mining conglomerate is a huge mistake byt the ethdev team, no half ass vote can hide this fact. Why would a miner even bother to vote, 4 options and none carry the MAIN concern of miners.

Miners really don’t even care about issuance that much becuase you could double issuance and all that means is ASIC builders will ramp up even more and normal miners get the same tiny peice of the pie.

Forking Asics however is a Re-leveling of the playing field and would get alot of votes.

Reduce issuance with no fork will probably kill the network for gpus , If thats what the team wants have at it.

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

MoneroCrusher commented Aug 29, 2018

Completely agree, the decentralized miner community wouldn't care if issuance was increased even to 6 ETH :-)
You know why? Because they wouldn't get it, Bitmain and Innosilicon and their big partners would.
Only way to avoid a community split is to respect the miners that secured the network for years and made it big. Ethereum is supposed to be decentralized after all, isn't it?
Issuance reduction would put 90% of the hashrate in a such low number of participants you could count them with your fingers.
I'm failing to understand how such a huge number of people don't get that concept. All they can think about is "miners are greeeeedy!!!!111, let's not give them more!!1"
I think issuance reduction is out of question, and I support it as a miner. But ASICs have to be destroyed at the same time unless you want a community split. Good luck ETH devs.

@Snuff

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

Snuff commented Aug 29, 2018

Hi @MoneroCrusher!

Thanks for the research, it seems your version is more trustworthy than mine. When I was working on the article I took the data on a total NVidia & AMD sales, so 10% seems ok. I'm working on the second part of the article on ASICs, ProgPOW, and other possible solutions of ASIC issue. What do you think of ProgPOW?

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

olalawal commented Aug 29, 2018

@Snuff you need to go back to the drawing board, even a layman with zero research could tell you there is far far more than 10 percent of ASIC powered hash on the network

@MoneroCrusher your numbers are even conservative, if you consider the fact that , people buy gpus to mine neoscrypt, cn7 forks, Ethereum forks , and a multitude of other algorithms.

So even looking at the millions of dollars worth of gpus sold for crytocurrncy mining maybe only 75 to 80 percent or lesss of those are pointed to the Ethereum network which even pushes the scale of ASICS higher than 50 percent, this is an informed educated guess.

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

atlanticcrypto commented Aug 29, 2018

Folks, I want to put the BTC vs ETH analysis in perspective. Let's compare the networks at the same age (meaning, 100 days of operation for both). If we do that, we get to see ETH issuance versus BTC issuance at the same network age.

image

I'm not sure the ETH network has EVER overpaid relative to BTC. It seems to be years away from doing so.

Bootstrapping network security is expensive in terms of monetary supply. The ETH dev team should be celebrated on every street corner in the digital world for how cheaply they've done it so far.

On a length of network life adjusted basis, ETH is no where near overpaying.

@chfast

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

chfast commented Aug 29, 2018

Legend:

  • blue - BTC
  • red - ETH

@atlanticcrypto you forgot to subtract the ETH created in the genesis block.

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

atlanticcrypto commented Aug 29, 2018

ETH in the presale and ETH mined should be fungible. I didn't think I should subtract it?

@jean-m-cyr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

jean-m-cyr commented Aug 29, 2018

@atlanticcrypto I'm not sure using time since inception is a relevant factor unless both started at the same time. Otherwise the different start times occur in different socio-economic contexts.

@chfast

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

chfast commented Aug 29, 2018

@atlanticcrypto because you are counting percents by comparing issuance to the current supply while BTC started from 0 and ETH from 60 millions.

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

atlanticcrypto commented Aug 29, 2018

@jean-m-cyr Absolutely. And now I get to make my point. Comparing ETH to BTC is a dumb relative metric. It is unusable. The ETH network is composed of a different type of hardware and is much more decentralized. It has a different USD street value of components. It takes longer to scale. There are so many things that are different that invalidate any comparisons between ETH and BTC in terms of "under" or "over" paying.

All I can say is, we operate a ton of mining hardware. If people believe that makes me untrustworthy, whatever. What I am yelling at the top of my lungs though is that if we cut the issuance here by more than we proposed in EIP-1295, we believe that the portion of hashrate that falls off the network is going to be large enough that it will put the security of the network at risk. That's all I can really do - I've published a ton of data to support it - now I have to trust in the developers to make the best call as they see it.

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

atlanticcrypto commented Aug 29, 2018

@chfast I understand your point, but does issuance as a percent of mined coins matter or does issuance as a percent of all coins matter? The fungibility makes me believe it's the latter? If you mined a coin at block 2, it's not like you had 50% of the coin float, whereas in BTC you did.

@jean-m-cyr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

jean-m-cyr commented Aug 29, 2018

@atlanticcrypto Unfortunately the outcry from both miners and investors unjustly places the core developers (or whoever will ultimately decide) between a rock and a hard place...

@salanki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

salanki commented Aug 29, 2018

Cross posting from #55 as that thread is less active, I apologize for the spam:

There seems to be concern of possible centralization risk with EIP-1295 and also concern about the network impact of EIP-858 and EIP-1234. I've submitted a EIP that proposes a reward reduction similar to EIP-1295 but without changing the reward structure. This EIP is intended as a measured decrease to provide data for making decisions on further decreases in latter hard forks.

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

olalawal commented Aug 30, 2018

Link to 55,
#55

It seems the same voices are talking to each other out there, basically thier own echo chamber.

AGAIN NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE BS EIP VOTE.

ita like a ballot with only one candidate, worthless , worse than rigged banana republic elections.

stop pointing to its results , its a farce

@lrettig

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

lrettig commented Sep 4, 2018

Closing in favor of #56

@lrettig lrettig closed this Sep 4, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment