Ethereum Core Devs Meeting Constantinople Session #1 Agenda #55
Comments
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
🍿😀 |
|
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! |
|
In addition to the ProgPOW discussion, |
|
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? |
|
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. |
|
@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. |
|
@OperationNine My understanding is only a certain % of ETH 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". |
|
@DarkDaoCharlieBrown Read the spec instead of spreading false information. Relevant part is here "DEPOSIT_SIZE - 32 ETH The ongoing cost of mining is not fixed and it is not independent. At steady state it follows price * issuance. |
|
@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. |
|
@DarkDaoCharlieBrown Please see Vitaliks comments regarding a hardcap.
(Hence why we should bring EIP960 discussion into this developer meeting)
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. |
|
@OperationNine Please note that only 1 of the 3 arguments made by Vitalik:
Could possibly have some relevance (debatable) as announced in June/July 2018, Casper FFG has been delayed by 1-2 years. The last two:
Were reliant on Casper FFG being release this year. Vitalik's tweet you source is from April 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:
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). |
|
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. |
|
@nico9111 "shared and discussed thousands of times on Reddit and Twitter" |
|
@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. |
|
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. |
|
Another way to look at it is that combining all issuance related polls clearly shows that the community WANTS block reward reduction... |
|
I think it is apparent that the community would appreciate an issuance reduction. |
|
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 |
|
@justinjja Start reading EIPs: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1355. |
|
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. |
|
@eth1337 a.k.a. "pamp it pleez" |
|
Presented without comment - EIP-960 (whether it was a joke or not) issuance paths:
|
|
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. |
|
@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). |
|
@atlanticcrypto |
|
@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 |
|
No. Window for new EIPs closed a while back. All new proposals have to go into the subsequent Istanbul hardfork. |
|
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. |
|
1234 is already changed and accepted. https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1234 |
|
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:
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). |
|
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. |
|
And gain more and more ASICs controlled by the same few companies |
|
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. |
|
@5chdn @ ALL ETH DEVS 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. |
If you want to help you can benchmark ProgPoW on as many GPU models as possible. |
|
@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. |
|
@chfast Model Hashrate (MH/s) There's also a testnet so I can bench all the GPUs you want if it helps ProgPOW making it into Constantinople. @salanki |
|
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://[email protected]:3033" |
|
I'm ok with forks.
…On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 1:15 PM MoneroCrusher ***@***.***> wrote:
@chfast <https://github.com/chfast>
ProgPOW will be live on a mainnet next week in approximately 158 hours.
OhGodAGirl helped them implement it, she said she could very easily offer
several developers to implement it in Constantinope, for free that is.
GETH is done, ethminer implementation is done, benchmarks were made.
Can you let us, the community, in on your thought process of rejecting it
in Constantinople. The community won't accept a simple "no time". Please be
transparent to the community what exactly there is no time for. Each piece
of the puzzle that is missing to accomplish it.
I'm in no way affiliated with ProgPOW or the developers behind it, I'm
just a simple miner.
But I know: if you reduce BR without honoring miners and decentralization,
there *will* be a fork. I'm not personally doing one but I've read about
numerous people willing to support it, and I really hope it won't end that
way, as it would probably damange crypto and the market if it were to
happen.
There's also always the option to delay Constantinople until you are sure
a majority of the community will support it.
Supporters of BR issuance reduction only all believe BR reduction will
make ETH "moon", let me tell you: it won't.
Do you know what surpresses the price? Bitmain and other manufacturers
mining ETH on a big scale in secret, putting constant market pressure on
the books because they don't care about ETH. They'll sell it to buy
BTC/BCH, the only thing that is more equalized is a big chaotic community
of miners, each deciding themselves what they do with their coins, and not
the investors behind them, which don't exist in the first place, mostly.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#55 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANH0wj5iLRV3yRjMV5G3yjq9poKpNAyLks5uWW8igaJpZM4WQsxW>
.
|
|
@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. |
|
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 |
|
@MoneroCrusher |
|
@earthloong Check their investor's deck, they seem to have almost no ETH, do you know what that means? tl;dr |
|
@olalawal |
|
I do think it is worth forking to ProgPow or EIP1355, but 40-50% sounds like a huge stretch. |
|
@justinjja "How can you say ASICs are only 10% of the network? I can also say it's 60% of the network. Both are opinions. 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. 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. 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). 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. |
|
@MoneroCrusher |
|
I am not saying the narrative is wrong but the study has a lot of holes.
For example, the possibility of hash rate coming into Ethereum from other
networks was not considered. A lot of people I know went from playing
fallout to mining Ethereum. Another, too much reliance on GPU
manufacturers data and its quality. They are not obligated to try hard and
give accurate miner sales number (they can't know for sure). So they're
just rough estimates.
…On Sat, Sep 1, 2018, 1:10 AM MoneroCrusher ***@***.***> wrote:
@justinjja <https://github.com/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.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#55 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANH0wvk9IU2-CR-m5ZLN_VS2E8HAcj43ks5uWhbQgaJpZM4WQsxW>
.
|
ghost
mentioned this issue
|
Closing as I think nothing is outstanding here, @Souptacular reopen if I've missed something. |
and others
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
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.
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
Different articles/links regarding potential issuance reduction conversation:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: