Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Block Reward Reduction to 0.5 ETH (DRAFT) #2878
Block Reward Reduction to 0.5 ETH (DRAFT) #2878
Changes from 3 commits
5d112a3
3f168be
624dd6f
77af00f
bd7fb7d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please use one space after periods.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is one space a standard for EIP formatting? Or just a personal preference?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is standard EIP formatting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks. We will go through and make sure there is one space after periods.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO, this is too sensational and should focus on the technical issue--over-paying for security.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you be more specific? We state that the goal is to stop over-paying for security, with only one reference to other blockchains. Do you suggest not justifying or explaining why over-paying is bad in the abstract?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
EIP abstracts are generally summaries of the technical changes an EIP is proposing, with minimal motivation / rationale, since there are separate sections for that information.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think block validation is wrong term here, since nodes are not paid for validating.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We are not referencing or making any suggestion that nodes are paid for validating. Nodes verify blocks, but mining nodes validate blocks. Can you elaborate further as to what language you would like to see here, and why? Block validation is done by miners, or, more specifically, pool operators running a full node, or non-pool small miners who run a full node. We make reference to "block validation" as it encompasses all various actors who may be validating through pooled or non-pooled mining.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Verify and validate are isomorphic. I believe the correct terminology here is
s/block validators/miners
. "Mining" has been colloquially used to refer to all duties of a miner (including block validation). Block validation, on its own, is really just a subset of a miner's duty. If the miner isn't actively searching PoW solutions (e.g. simply acting as a "block validator"), it will never be paid and therefore can never be overpaid.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should specify what the block reward will be and any other changes this EIP requires.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It also needs to specify what constants are changing, and what they are changing too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All previous EIPs that lowered the block reward, did not specify which constants are changing, since the change is so trivial. (only one constant is changed). Would you like us to change this status quo?
If so, we will make a reference as following for example:
consensus.go should be updated on line 45:
NewBlockReward = big.NewInt(5e+17) // Block reward in wei for successfully mining a block upward from the fork that will include this EIP
Please advise if this is sufficient, and if not please be specific as to what other changes to what files you would like to see.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@JLilic please see the specification section in EIP-649 and EIP-1234 to see how these changes have been defined historically.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it. We will make a similar change in that case.