Reject ECIP-1093 "RandomX"

[q9f]

reopen #352

as per reasoning in #333

@gitr0n1n if you want to reiterate this proposal back in draft status, please schedule another call for the sake of process.

[gitr0n1n]

Please see the relevant thread to this topic: #352

[gitr0n1n]

An accepted request from #352:

Please consider leaving this proposal in Draft status as it is my opinion as the author that it never got a fair shake in the ECIP process.

It was rushed through with minimal communication to vested parties. 14 days from inception to reject. Thank you.

There is no harm in leaving it in Draft status for adequate time for discussion. And should ECIP-1049 become contenious, this ECIP will be sitting in the Draft status as an option. If ECIP-1049 is implemented and accept by the network without contention, this proposal will likely be dated and could be rejected at that time. This is the most logical approach as the contra ECIP-1049 sat in draft status for over a year to let the community digest the implications of it.

[q9f]

I have nothing else to add.

[gitr0n1n]

please schedule another call for the sake of process.

I'm happy to schedule this call for right now in Discord where I will read: #352 (comment)

I am sitting in the Discord discussion channel now and will read this message at 8:35 AM UTC. Please attend. Thank you.

[gitr0n1n]

This call has concluded. I am sorry if you could not make the scheduled call.

Here is a brief recap of the ECIP-1093 call just held in the Discussion Calls channel for anyone that missed it:

• I read this comment out loud: Reject ECIP-1093 "RandomX" #352 (comment)
• I asked the room if anyone objected to restoring ECIP-1093 back to Draft status.
• No one objected to this action.
• I concluded that the call reached rough consensus on the topic with everyone present for the scheduled call.

Thank you to all those who attended.

[q9f]

Please don't troll the process. That's the only protection we have.

Moving back to Draft as per comment above.

For further work on RandomX I would kindly ask you to research the same as the SHA3 team and the Keccak256 team:

• How would a transition look like (1 block, slow mining, hybrid, etc.)?
• What change in difficulty would be required? How do hashrates compare on different hardware (can it be factorized)?
• How would ETC hashrate compare to competitors (Monero, etc.)?

[gitr0n1n]

For further work on RandomX I would kindly ask you to research the same as the SHA3 team and the Keccak256 team:

• How would a transition look like (1 block, slow mining, hybrid, etc.)?
• What change in difficulty would be required? How do hashrates compare on different hardware (can it be factorized)?
• How would ETC hashrate compare to competitors (Monero, etc.)?

Please add this ECIP-1093 feedback to the ECIP discussion thread #329 . Thank you for closing this PR.

[developerkevin]

As this ECIP was rejected on proper grounds, following the ECIP process to a "T", the author, Ronin, must draft a new ECIP while this one stays rejected. Its crucial we don't give one group or individual preferential treatment just because they are incessantly harassing you here and in discord. All he has to do is draft either the same one or make some changes if he wants but it must be a new ECIP to follow the process. Once rejected, an ECIP cannot magically be un-rejected.

[developerkevin]

Also this process should not be made a mockery of. It's for technical discussion not politics!

[gitr0n1n]

As this ECIP was rejected on proper grounds, following the ECIP process to a "T", the author, Ronin, must draft a new ECIP while this one stays rejected. Its crucial we don't give one group or individual preferential treatment just because they are incessantly harassing you here and in discord. All he has to do is draft either the same one or make some changes if he wants but it must be a new ECIP to follow the process. Once rejected, an ECIP cannot magically be un-rejected.

I spent a night reviving this ECIP following the instructions from the call moderator. I'm happy to redraft the proposal and submit this proposal again. That is a simply copy and paste effort for me. Actually less effort than having to hold a 60 minute call in the discord that night. So, I have no issue resubmitting this proposal again. Thanks for informing me of the proper ECIP process @developerkevin. It is appreciated.

Here is the PR to resubmit this proposal: #363