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

ecbp 1076: activate miner signaling process #194

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

soc1c
Copy link
Contributor

@soc1c soc1c commented Nov 21, 2019

activating the ecbp as per call today #174 (comment)

Copy link
Contributor

@sorpaas sorpaas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As said in #174 (comment) I don't think we can move forward with this at all. Thus putting it on hold.

@soc1c soc1c dismissed sorpaas’s stale review November 21, 2019 17:22

we had a 80 minutes call on that and rough consensus as documented in #174.

author: Talha Cross (@soc1c)
discussions-to: https://github.com/ethereumclassic/ECIPs/issues/174
status: Draft
status: Active
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is invalid. Signaling is a hard fork process, and thus this should follow "Last Call" -> "Accepted" -> "Final" route, instead of "Active".

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not a hard fork process. It's non-binding signaling.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@soc1c Still, there's no justification to move this to "Active" status. I believe that's just wrong.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Quote ECIP-1000:

"Process ECIPs may also be moved to a status of “Active” instead"

This clearly is a process ECIP.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@soc1c I would put this in the same category as specifications like ERC-20. I don't believe they can be moved to "Active" status, thus the same for this ECBP.

@soc1c soc1c requested a review from sorpaas November 21, 2019 17:23
@soc1c soc1c dismissed sorpaas’s stale review November 21, 2019 17:34

This is a process ECBP and can be Active as per ECIP-1000.

Copy link
Contributor

@sorpaas sorpaas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please don't disrupt the review process. The issue I mentioned has not been addressed at all.

@ethereumclassic ethereumclassic locked as too heated and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 21, 2019
@ethereumclassic ethereumclassic unlocked this conversation Nov 21, 2019
@soc1c
Copy link
Contributor Author

soc1c commented Nov 21, 2019

please allow editors and community members to review this change

@tzdybal
Copy link

tzdybal commented Nov 21, 2019

  1. ECBP is a category of "standard track" ECIPs.
  2. As per ECIP-1000 you cannot move ECIP/ECBP from Draft to Active. Active can be used only instead of Final. And there is also Last call and Accepted state between Draft and Final.

    Some Informational ECIPs, which are considered process ECIPs, may also be moved to a status of Active instead of Final if they are never meant to be completed, e.g. this ECIP-1000.

  3. I agree that Active is not a proper state for this ECBP.

@soc1c soc1c closed this Nov 22, 2019
@soc1c soc1c deleted the s1-ecbp-signaling branch November 22, 2019 10:19
Copy link
Contributor

@zmitton zmitton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please make the following efficiency changes


This stage is finished once all proposals are either in "Last Call," "Withdrawn," or "Rejected" state.

2. _"Miner Stage."_ Solo miners, mining farms, and mining pools can signal support by adjusting their mining node to signal in favor of one of the proposals that was promoted to "Last Call" state in the previous stage. Details on the signaling can be found in the subsequent section.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
2. _"Miner Stage."_ Solo miners, mining farms, and mining pools can signal support by adjusting their mining node to signal in favor of one of the proposals that was promoted to "Last Call" state in the previous stage. Details on the signaling can be found in the subsequent section.
2. _"Miner Stage."_ Solo miners, mining farms, and mining pools can signal support by adjusting their mining node to signal in favor of one of the proposals specified here. Details on the signaling can be found in the subsequent section.


### Process
The following process facilitates all stakeholders in various stages.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
The following process facilitates all stakeholders in various stages.
The following process facilitates all stakeholders in various stages, with "Tech Stage" and the "Miner Stage" to occur in parallel:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants