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

Ethereum Core Devs Meeting Constantinople Session #1 Agenda #55

Closed
Souptacular opened this issue Aug 29, 2018 · 80 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@Souptacular
Copy link
Member

commented Aug 29, 2018

Ethereum Core Devs Meeting Constantinople Session 1 Agenda

Meeting Date/Time: Friday 31 August 2018 at 14:00 UTC

Meeting Duration 1.5 hours

YouTube Live Stream Link

Constantinople Progress

Agenda

  1. 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.
  2. Constantinople EIPs
    a. EIP 145: Bitwise shifting instructions in EVM
    b. EIP 1218: Simpler blockhash refactoring. We are delaying this one until Istanbul.
    c. EIP 1014: Skinny CREATE2
    d. EIP 1052: EXTCODEHASH Opcode
    e. EIP 1283: Net gas metering for SSTORE without dirty maps
  3. Client Constantinople Updates
  4. Constantinople Testing
  5. (If we have time) Changing PoW algorithm to be ASIC resistant. There is renewed interest from miners to implement ProgPoW.

Different articles/links regarding potential issuance reduction conversation:

@stobiewan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 29, 2018

The decision for the block reward shouldn't be limited to the values in the proposed EIPs. Choosing between one or two eth/block is an unnecessarily coarse resolution. 1.15 eth per block will match bitcoins inflation rate, and exceed it when uncle rewards are considered, so going all the way up to two just because it's a whole number and is one of the options above completely loses sight of the objective.

@mohsenghajar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 29, 2018

For a more uniform and predictable block time, a reduction of difficulty is in order, namely deferrance of the difficulty bomb.

At this point what seems urgent is a measure to support the price and prevent a further fall. Most effective way is reduction of miner rewards. The 1 eth per block sounds the most promising of the three, as it most prudently addresses the urgency at this critical time. I would prefer the issuance to be even smaller, for the same reason. Miners will be winners too. Comrades -- Ethereum can dive really really deep, and not come back for a long time if nothing is done.

Fortunately, the voters have spoken. But I believe the option of capping the supply must also come back on the table. EIP 960

@fluffypomeranian

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 29, 2018

🍿😀

@Ramarti

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 29, 2018

Hey guys, dapp dev here. I try to follow all the calls and last one I feel it was pretty "conflicted" at least looking at the comment stream.

Do you have an establish consensus method to reach a decision? Is it a vote? will the decision on point 1 happen in the meeting or at a later point in time or in a different forum? Maybe having clear expectations on how that decision will be made could help.

Anyway just my 2 cents. Much love, keep up the work!

@justinjja

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 29, 2018

In addition to the ProgPOW discussion,
I would also be interested in a tiny change to the current Ethash algo as a stopgap until ProgPOW can be properly tested.
The same type of thing Monero did with Cryptonight to CryptonightV1

@nico9111

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 29, 2018

A vote on this topic was just closed and we have the result. It's a viable vote that was proposed and voted upon. What to do with it? apply it or just ignore it? If we ignore, will the community have faith in the next vote proposal? if miners say this is not representative because no ASIC resistance was introduced, does it excuse the fact that they didn't vote for their favorite EIP (I guess 1295 or 1227)? if they haven't, does that mean they lost their right to complain? questions, questions...

What's for damn sure is that this community urgently needs a defined guidance to properly vote on important issues. Weighted ETH vote on Etherchain is a good start. Now we need a clear process. I propose to add to all upcoming EIP voting proposals the ability to vote: "This vote should be void" so at least it gives a chance to voters to express their interest to propose another vote. Also, voting periods should be shorten so we don't waste so much time in debating and voting things that eventually go nowhere (a month is way too long, I propose 2 weeks).

Closed vote results: What should be done regarding proof-of-work issuance until Casper is ready?
Votes Ether Voted %
EIP-1295 7 283.2 0.2
EIP 1234 31 41938.5 27.7
EIP 858 129 108882.9 72.0
EIP 1227 3 65.5 0.0
Total 170 151170.1 100%
Winner by a landslide: EIP-858

@salanki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 29, 2018

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.

@Souptacular I would appreciate if this EIP could be added as an option to the agenda for Fridays meeting.

@OperationNine

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

@Souptacular Can you please add EIP 960 into the agenda as it is a fairly straight forward proposal to bring to the table for discussion. Technically it would be very easy to integrate into the Constantinople hardfork and at this stage I feel many others would also support the topic of an ETH hardcap being discussed as we are in the stages of addressing an unnecessary amount of inflation that has been long known about. Please see Vlads Medium post from all the way back to the beginning of 2017 for reference about this: https://medium.com/@Vlad_Zamfir/the-case-for-smaller-block-rewards-fb0eab38e15c

The 2 popular choices for block reward reduction thus far have proven to be EIP858 with 1 ETH per block and 2 ETH per blocks with EIP 1234. Keeping the block reward the same at 3 ETH shouldn't even be an option really with over 99% of the community vote weighing in favor a needed reduction:

https://old.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/9bc8i9/monthlong_ethereum_issuance_reduction_coin_vote/

Maybe 1.5 ETH could be some form of compromise?

I would like to point out that current ETH inflation schedule is not what was originally projected back in 2016 as per V's post here for reasons relating to the difficulty bomb delay: https://old.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/5izcf5/lets_talk_about_the_projected_coin_supply_over/dbc66rd

This is a strong justification for lowering the block reward.

There has been some good discussion happening so far about a hardcap on the Ether supply, and is one of the most commented on EIP's: ethereum/EIPs#960

At 32 ETH per staking validator node, in theory if the hardcap was set at 128,000,000 this would mean a total of 4,000,000 validator nodes if all Ether was staked. Just some food for thought in relation to Vitaliks 120-140M proposal :)

Personally I feel a hardcap would greatly help demonstrate more maturity of the Ethereum Project. Perhaps this is something we can discuss as a community! Hope to be able to hear about it.

@DarkDaoCharlieBrown

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

@OperationNine My understanding is only a certain % of ETH will be available for is expected to be staked as Vitalik confirms in a reply to this post. The 4m validator nodes you are quoting is therefore incorrect and too optimistic. Implementing a hardcap doesnt demonstrate any sort of maturity without scientific data to support it and if once proven reductions in the hardcap can always be implemented in the PoS stage of Ethereum through a burn mechanism.

The justification for a reward reduction seems to be to stop any continued fall in price. Some have tried to tie the reward to environmental impact while at the same time suggesting it would lead to an increase in price. Such logic is flawed because the $ cost of mining would continue to be the same should there be a price increase post reward reduction and therefore have no impact on the no. of miners.

Considering all reward reduction proposals are effectively an attempt to "bailout" ETH token holders who have bought ETH for speculative purposes at a high price, I think it would considerate to include EIP-999 in the discussion as a higher priority for a "bailout".

@stobiewan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

@DarkDaoCharlieBrown Read the spec instead of spreading false information. Relevant part is here

"DEPOSIT_SIZE - 32 ETH
MAX_VALIDATOR_COUNT - 222 = 4194304 # Note: this means that up to ~134 million ETH can stake at the same time"

The ongoing cost of mining is not fixed and it is not independent. At steady state it follows price * issuance.

@DarkDaoCharlieBrown

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

@stobiewan Please see this post which Vitalik replies to: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/7n3t4u/economics_of_staking/drywix6/

Ive edited my post to reflect the correct semantics.

@OperationNine

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

@DarkDaoCharlieBrown Please see Vitaliks comments regarding a hardcap.

  1. People do broadly support fixed supply
  2. Community has gone a long way from "are the core devs up high going to make this happen or not?" closer to "I don't care about the source, I think it's a good idea", but there's still a long way to go to get there

We need to more actively encourage active community involvement especially in deciding economic parameters, which are legitimate tradeoffs between goals and not just a "technocratic security setting".

(Hence why we should bring EIP960 discussion into this developer meeting)

I do now believe that fixed supply is worth considering. Arguments:

  • With ASICs, PoW issuance fails at making coin distribution more egalitarian
  • With PoS, PoW issuance not needed for security
  • With rewards coming from rent+other burned fees, can have rewards without issuance

Source: https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/980744740277661696?lang=en

I am agreeing with Vitalik that a hardcap would be well worth the effort. Let's see if by discussing it more we can reach some organic conclusions as a community.

@DarkDaoCharlieBrown

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

@OperationNine Please note that only 1 of the 3 arguments made by Vitalik:

  • With ASICs, PoW issuance fails at making coin distribution more egalitarian

Could possibly have some relevance (debatable) as announced in June/July 2018, Casper FFG has been delayed by 1-2 years. The last two:

  • With PoS, PoW issuance not needed for security
  • With rewards coming from rent+other burned fees, can have rewards without issuance

Were reliant on Casper FFG being release this year. Vitalik's tweet you source is from April 2018.

@nico9111

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

Above all else, we need to come up with a final answer sooner rather than later. Uncertainty is depressing for everybody and shows a real lack of governance ability. Crypto is watching and nobody wants to be the laughinstock i.e https://www.coindesk.com/ethereums-october-upgrade-could-be-29-billion-blockchains-biggest-test-yet/

@econoar proposed a few days ago on reddit that we must work on a process to vote on proposals.

This is my 2 cents:

  • To the argument "well I didn't even know about the vote happening", I say each and everyone should be responsible for its own investment and opinion and do its due diligence. It was a month long vote that has been shared and discussed thousands of times on Reddit and Twitter. It's a bit of an easy excuse but anyhow this is what I would propose to solve it: Etherchain NFTs airdrops for each vote proposals to every Ethereum address. This way, noone can say they didn't know about it
  • to the argument "well screw this vote, it missed the whole point", I say ok that's fair and there should be an automatic vote option within each and every vote proposal that says "None of the above" which, if winner, voids the entirety of the vote
  • to the argument "well I don't care, it doesn't mean anything to me", I say ok fair enough, we call that the blank vote option and there should be an automatic vote option within each and every vote proposal that says "I don't care" which, if winner, makes the next vote the actual winner.
  • to the argument "well I don't get it and would rather let the core devs handle it", I say sure, it makes sense. There should be an automatic vote option within each and every vote proposal that says "I trust the core devs to make the right call" which, if winner, lets the core devs make the call.
  • to the argument, "well voting with a weighted approach using addresses' ETH amount is unfair to the masses that can't afford large amounts", I say the opposite is also true in the sense that among two people with the same wealth, the larger investor is considered to take more risk and should have a bigger voice. The traditional electoral system works pretty much the same way with lobbyists doing their thing. This is a point to be discussed though.

This way, it should simplify everything moving forward and we have an urgent need to make it all simpler, readily available (i.e. etherchain NFTs airdrops) and complete (i.e. all automatic voting proposals additions listed above).

@Nmining

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

I´m looking forward for tomorrow show. This https://cryptonewmedia.press/2018/08/30/worlds-largest-bitcoin-mining-pool-launches-ethereum-operation/ news is coming out just day before the meeting. And im wondering what to do next with my small gpu farm. Is it still worth keep mining.

@justinjja

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

@nico9111 "shared and discussed thousands of times on Reddit and Twitter"
um... There were only 170 votes.

@nico9111

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

@justinjja "I say each and everyone should be responsible for its own investment and opinion and do its due diligence." the point is that the proposal was communicated a lot and was open for a long time. I understand people who say hey I didn't vote because none of the above made sense which ultimately counts as a vote but I don't get people complaining they would have voted if they knew about it like getting an email from the vote proposer. It's crypto, we don't send email to people.

@justinjja

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

My point being, that poll wasn't big enough to be relevant.

Here is a poll that has 3x more people voting, but even 500 people still isn't close to enough to equate to consensus on global network the size of ethereum.
https://twitter.com/5chdn/status/1020631670398038016

@nico9111

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

Another way to look at it is that combining all issuance related polls clearly shows that the community WANTS block reward reduction...

@eth1337

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

I think it is apparent that the community would appreciate an issuance reduction.

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

Again that Eip vote its bullshit, miners didn’t vote , it does not have the most important options they care about... ASIC resistance along with issuance reduction.

At 2 eth mining becomes unprofitable for 90 percent of gpu miners , at 1 only asics will remain.

i mean they already hold 60 percent of the network hash rate and you geniuses want to hand them another 33.33 percent?

Unbelievable lol

@chfast

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 30, 2018

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

https://crypto.omnianalytics.io/2018/08/23/ethereums-economic-breakpoint-an-analysis/

I don’t know how anyone can read this and not come to the conclusion :a pow fork is needed along with the issuance reduction to prevent grave levels of centralization and risk.

Pretty much covers all the angles and ends the discussion Imo.

Not seen anything posted that counters the main conclusion its the most detailed analysis I have yet seen.

@andrelegault

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

@eth1337 a.k.a. "pamp it pleez"

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

Presented without comment - EIP-960 (whether it was a joke or not) issuance paths:

image

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

Give me an upvote if you want ETH per-block reduction to 2 ETH and at the same time fork ASICs off with ProgPOW (which will be deployment ready soon) in order to keep the chain decentralized

Downvote if you don't.

@atlanticcrypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

@MoneroCrusher I personally have no belief that ProgPoW can realistically be rolled out and tested across the entire network before this fork. I am all for a PoW algo switch - but logistically that is a HUGE ask in two months time. I may be wrong, and it may be possible to implement it into the client codebases and be thoroughly tested before. I would love to be pleasantly surprised by a fast rollout. We will also do anything we can to help in the process. But if a rushed rollout puts network security at risk - I don't think it's worth it.

@chfast's EIP-1355 looks like it may be a stopgap solution, but I am no algo engineer. If EIP-1355 gets the job done with minimal security risk, I'm all for it. If it can be done in this fork then we can also have quantifiable evidence to support a change to issuance at the next fork, if no other monetary policy schedule is adopted (please please please let's do this).

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2018

@atlanticcrypto
According to @OhGodAGirl the majority is already done and she can, according to her own statement, easily implement it into Constantinople - time wise.

@justinjja

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

Nice, somehow I missed EIP1355. Will it be included in constantinople?

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

@justinjja looks like no

I can’t belive someone mentioned ETC lol , yall are really reaching here.

I think GPU miners will stay on the old chain after constantinople with a ProgPow update.

There will be no place for us on th old network anyways , its a logical move

@5chdn

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Aug 31, 2018

No. Window for new EIPs closed a while back. All new proposals have to go into the subsequent Istanbul hardfork.

@justinjja

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

You want to wait as long as possible before posting a change like this, to prevent ASIC manufactures from getting a head start.

If you really can't put a new EIP in, you can include it with EIP-1234, which is getting changed anyway.

@5chdn

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Aug 31, 2018

1234 is already changed and accepted. https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1234

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

So even though community supports forking ASICs off you don't deem it important. So much for respecting the GPU miners that kept you secure over the years.

If there's a community driven fork to:

  • implement ProgPOW
  • merge pulling all EIPs that Ethereum does otherwise (including BR reduction to 2 ETH) in the future
  • reduce DAG size to 750 MB and fix it there (because DAG increase is not necessary anymore with ProgPOW)

This would provide most decentralization as people with 1 & 2 GB cards will also be able to mine & secure the network.

I would be ready to point my farm to it (not disclosing exact number but its more than 20 GH/s and less than 100 GH/s).
Absolutely disappointed with the IMO bad decision of ETH devs with regards to ASICs

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

BTW ETH issuance reduction only will make it barely profitable for me to mine. Think about all the hobbyist miners paying 20c for their household electricity, this will definitely put them out of business.
You're losing more & more miners

@salanki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

And gain more and more ASICs controlled by the same few companies

@5chdn

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Aug 31, 2018

I don't think the core devs are opposed to implementing progpow. But it's a very involved change and there is no way we can properly implement and test this before Constantinople. That's why it's realistically being dealt with on the way up to the Istanbul fork.

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

@5chdn @ ALL ETH DEVS
Did you by chance miss OhGodAGirl stating that she and her devs can easily implement ProgPOW into Constantinople and that she would gladly provide all assistance & coding free of charge? The majority is done.

Here, read it for yourself:

So much misinformation about ProgPoW here, and what it does, and how it works.

First and foremost, it's not just a tweak that invalidates ASICs. Anyone involved in the development of hardware knows that these tweaks don't actually do anything when a sequencer and a creative architecture team comes into play, and with the development frame of ASICs, you're looking at about two months before a new revision with an alt-mask comes out.

Secondly, CNv2 and all Cryptonite variants are historically flawed. On a side note, when you go to tune something for multiple variations of a hardware, you run into the issue of actually becoming less centralized-resistant. It's (part) of the reason why ProgPoW is tied to 32-bit, rather than 64-bit.

Thirdly, ProgPoW actually takes very little work to implement in Constantinople. It requires client asistance, but that's about it. The hard part - the GPU architecture - is done. With enough serious adoption, I wager that larger companies will even throw their development efforts behind it. The ask for CNv2 to be adopted is baffling to me, because anyone in the know already knows that there are masks for the damn thing. Should I just start a Medium page, with designs for all these algorithms? If you don't believe me, go believe someone who lives and breaths silicon (someone like David Vorick, for instance).

Fourth, just because code hasn't seen widespread adoption in mainnet coins, doesn't mean it is a risk to implement. That is why the code is open source - you can pretty much catch any issue before being deployed. That's called peer review, folks. Innovation requires taking a chance sometimes.

You don't want to break existing ASICs, you want to tune the algorithm to a piece of hardware (a GPU) that everyone has access to, that is used for other things (not just cryptocurrency mining), and has natural resale value. Actually, there's a ton of neat tricks you can do (like ensuring its specialized on a single card, rather than multiple to benefit Average Joe Miner).

Fifth, ProgPoW is designed to not break ASICs, but to encourage development of open-source GPU cards. Creating an "ASIC" for ProgPoW will end up just mimicking a GPU. Open-source hardware is a wonderful thing. We need more diversity in this space, rather than the big three (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA). Imagine the kind of innovation we can see in a programmable world if everyone and their aunt has access to open-source graphic cards...

The constant whack-a-mole game with ASICs is tiring and a waste of development efforts. Please, don't go down that route.

I am really tickled pink that folks are pushing for ProgPoW, but please understand the algorithm's purpose isn't just to preserve cryptocurrency mining: it's to preserve a future powered by the most energy-friendly, compact, programmable pieces of hardware out there (GPUHoarder, don't you dare start).

Again, as I have said, if there is serious adoption this time by the governance of Ethereum, I am willing to spend the (personal) money to not only staff up, but lead the development effort.

@chfast

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 31, 2018

I am willing to spend the (personal) money to not only staff up, but lead the development effort.

If you want to help you can benchmark ProgPoW on as many GPU models as possible.

@salanki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

@MoneroCrusher: From a fellow miner; it's not that easy. Even if all of the code was done, the amount of testing, review and coordination such a major change requires is not something that you can rush in a couple of weeks. It is not something specific to Ethereum, it is just how software development of production code works. The best thing we can do is to test it ourselves. Get a testnet up, run benchmarks on GPUs and do longevity tests to make sure it is stable.

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

@chfast
I was quoting OhGodAGirl
Github on old ios device is quite terrible for me so I didn't even try to format it.
Anyway here are some stock benchmarks:

Model Hashrate (MH/s)
RX580 9.4
Vega56 16.6
Vega64 18.7
GTX1070Ti 13.1
GTX1080 14.9
GTX1080Ti 21.8

There's also a testnet so I can bench all the GPUs you want if it helps ProgPOW making it into Constantinople.

@salanki
In 156 hours there will be a mainnet launching ProgPOW. They have a tiny dev team and managed to do it. I think 8 weeks of testing is plenty...

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

Here's the testnet of ProgPOW if anyone wants to try themself (don't worry it's not gonna bite u :-))

"ProgPOW testpool up! Windows miner: https://www.dropbox.com/s/t427mpf0kzyidrg/Progpow.zip?dl=0 ....... Miner source https://github.com/BitcoinInterestOfficial/ProgPOW startup for testpool: -P stratum+tcp://mgomtozjYh6Xx5qL642bcskX2cikpqQVM9@37.16.104.240:3033"

@mohsenghajar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

@MoneroCrusher you should stop wasting your breath here I think the ship has sailed on an Asic Resistance update for Ethereum.

I think we should spend our energy on Bci since they are focusing on progPow , that way we could roll alot of those changes into a potential fork on the mainnet Constantinople rollout.

Im positive a different chain will be supported by gpu miners since no sane miner will mine on the main chain at a loss

Let asics have the mainet like the took over the zcash mainnet.

Im also spinning up a znomp pool for bci to test progpow this weekend in anticipation of a successful fork.

@olalawal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 31, 2018

found this post on reddit its summs the current situation up perfectly :

Exactly, decentralized mining leads to widespread adoption, centralization in mining leada to stagnation which is what we are seeing now. Now of course if dapps start to gain usage or scaling solutions take off you will see a boost.

Its strange how you guys and the devs seem to have forgotten how we got here

@earthloong

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 1, 2018

@MoneroCrusher
I suspect that you should have a large number of graphics card mines. Your point of view is to maintain the interests of a large number of graphics card mining machines or some graphics card manufacturers, and not the future of ethereum, a mature community or public chain platform should be much more A variety of miners and mining equipment to maintain an overall balance.

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 1, 2018

@earthloong
Now, do you prefer giving Bitmain 40-50% of the network, or 0.0075% to 0.035% of the network to me and dozens of thousands other people like me?
Do you see the "future in ETH" as youve mentioned by ASIC mining monopolies? Do you think Bitmain gives a single shit about ETH?

Check their investor's deck, they seem to have almost no ETH, do you know what that means?
Yes, they're mining ETH, worth 3 million per day (up to 50% of emission) and are constantly putting them on the market to buy their BTC & BCH, driving ETH price down.
Would you rather give all those ETH to Bitmain, a single entity, that have a huge political agenda to promote their shitcoin and generally hurting the market, or would you rather give it to thousands of people like me, who see the large future potential and that are more likely to hold, effectively reducing "ask book" pressure?
Thousands of miners & I have aligned ourselves (consciously or by chance) with decentralization by buying hardware that isn't specially made for ETH mining, Bitmain & Innosilicon are the cancers of this space, they are good at what they do but have very scammy marketing schemes, they'll use their miners to mine in secret and once their second gen is developed they'll sell you their old version, giving you the illusion that you bought awesome hardware, which will be obsolete very fast. Bitmain's internal ASIC is the E9, now they're selling E3, their old product. They do that to offroll risk and to appear as if they're a hardware selling company, when in fact they're also a mining company. You could blow them out of the water with a fork to ProgPOW (brought for free to the crypto space by OhGodAGirl, who has been developing miners in this space before ETH was even born), and give the power back to thousands of people, making the network inherently more decentralized, therefore more secure & ultimately more valuable.

tl;dr
Investors could care less about which hashing algo is used in ETH, they won't notice a change in the overlying protocol. They only change they'd notice is rising prices because thousands of miners is better for price than a single entity selling 50% of daily emission.

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 1, 2018

@olalawal
I think it's very important to spread awareness that centralization, which as of the moment will happen at Constantinople fork is extremely harmful to ETH (and other CCs).
Everybody's thinking resucing issuance will make ETH moon, this is very wrong, all what will happen is a further network shift to ASIC monopolies, boosting them far beyond 50% of network composition. And since they are the ones putting on daily sell pressure, it's quite easy to imagine that ETH might decline even further, as effectively Constantinople in current state will fork off all "miner holders", aka hobbyst miners & smaller farms.

@justinjja

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 1, 2018

I do think it is worth forking to ProgPow or EIP1355, but 40-50% sounds like a huge stretch.
It's not like Cryptonight where asics can beat a gpu by 100x, Ethash can only be optimized by about 2x.
Honestly I would bet that the percentage of Asics on Ethereum is lower than Monero right now.

@MoneroCrusher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 1, 2018

@justinjja
I don't think it's a stretch at all. Check my previous approximation based on GPU sales:

"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."

Here I even completely forgot about other networks (it was late in the night)! Since a big amount of GPUs went to mine other networks like Monero, Zcash, ETC and others, then even 50% is quite a conservative estimate.
The only way to to find out is through ProgPOW fork, and everyone will have an "Oh" moment, like when Monero forked ASICs off in April and it was revealed Bitmain owned 80% of nethash.
Bitmain even lied about it and said they didn't secretly mine Monero (but they conveniently put their miners up for sale 2-3 days after fork announcement had been made...right?! lmao) and some people even bought them for $13k a piece.

@earthloong

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 1, 2018

@MoneroCrusher
I don't support bitmain's mine behavior, but for ethereum or other public blockchain platforms, the consensus mechanism should be widely used to allow as many mining equipment as possible, not one (such as graphics cards). Moreover, the participants are more specialized (such as asic), but also have ordinary or discrete (such as video cards, mobile phones, etc.), which is more in line with the autonomy and operational logic of the public blockchain platform. In addition, as far as the present, asic does not pose a threat to Etherum (there is no direct evidence), we can use btc to compare, btc has such a large value (market value and security), the important reason is that it uses Pow algorithm and powerful asic computing support. The bitmain you mentioned, I know only the E3 mining machine, and basically the failed product. As for the so-called E9, I don't know where you are from? (Is there any evidence?), hasn't the other ethereum mining machines yet appeared on the market? So where does the so-called asic threat come from? Is it worrying?

@mohsenghajar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 1, 2018

@lrettig

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Sep 24, 2018

Closing as I think nothing is outstanding here, @Souptacular reopen if I've missed something.

@lrettig lrettig closed this Sep 24, 2018

Souptacular added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 19, 2019

Creating minutes #55.md
Adding minutes of #55

lrettig added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 4, 2019

Submitting Minutes #56 (#85)
* Creating minutes #55.md

Adding minutes of #55

* Notes Meeting 56.md

Creating notes #56

* Delete Meeting 55.md

This file was already added in #81
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.