Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 54 Agenda #73
Comments
|
For the record, this is my recollection of how we arrived at 7.28M, feel free to tweak if I've gotten anything wrong:
@naikmyeong we agreed that it makes sense to target upgrades to occur mid-week so it's more likely developers will be online and so that people aren't forced to work weekends. |
|
|
I made this reddit post: because I'm seriously worried and scared about how uncle rates are going down. So i think that the problem is more and more centralization on the ethereum blockchain for two reason:
The first issue is something that could be adjusted by economic incentives (disincentives) given enough time BUT if we are experiencing ( and I think so) a massive switch on asics mining every single day with ethash is very dangerus for the future of the entire project as a truly decentralized blockchain. In my opinion the ProgPow (or other asic resistant algos) implementation actually is the most important issue by far, even far more the important CostantiNOPEles saga. Please take it in consideration. |
|
Could you elaborate how you connect uncle rates with ASICs? |
|
@5chdn sure, I know in deep a medium sized mining farm with a good ( i think) efficiency and actually they are in the position to quit ether mining or swich to asics, . Big miners are more efficient, they use professional or custom services for transactions and new blocks propagation, I suppose that how the actual uncle rate is dropping is directly related with more centralizzation over big mining farms that are using asics mining. |
But we would see their hashrate somewhere, and I don't see any significant portion that could be a new ASIC mining farm here:
If these farms use some of the existing pools, I don't see how this should impact uncle rates. The five biggest unknown miners from that chart that could be indeed mining farms, accounting for 4.1371% of the network hashrate. This does not allow the conclusion that they are the main driver behind reduced uncle rates. |
Good point, so we can speculate that the linear uncle rate reduction is because of:
I don't know how many asics farms are connected with pools so I can't give any opinion on it, but in my experience point 3 remain an issue. Anyway I would be really glad to be wrong. |
|
I'm not sure when / where to put this on the agenda, so please let me know if there is a better spot for this, I worked to support @AlexeyAkhunov in putting together a post-Stanford EthRoadmap AMA on Feb 6th. See https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eth-roadmap-ama-webinar-feb-6th-8am-pst-1700-utc-1/2518 for details. Consider this a call for participation, I think @AlexeyAkhunov is talking to some of you about presenting. Given the shifting schedules of Constantinople / Istanbul, is it useful to plan ahead for the rest of the year and start making plans for any in-person meetings? I have suggested an in-person meeting the day after ETHCC in Paris here https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eth1x-istanbul-prep-meeting/2396 I realize that's only ~6 weeks from now, so tight timing that may not be worth it. If people want to plan further ahead, I'd be happy to help support the process. |
|
I'd like to directly refute RSAManagement's claims here. The uncle rate has been dropping substantially due to pre-fork adoption of new Parity/Geth client versions across the network. It was a blanket rollout of the better block propagation technology over a short window of time. It is not driven by some special "better propagation services used by mining pools" - the competitive technology advantages you believe exist at the large miner level are big foot sightings. You would be embarrassed at the way many of these firms/facilities operate. I'm not sure how lowered uncle rates is a scary thing - it theoretically increases total network throughput via lowered block times and higher miner reward per block. |
|
I second @atlanticcrypto's experience. I attribute lower uncle rates to better client code and less gas per block than during the peak a year ago. |
|
I'm quite surprised next agenda does not include any discussion about possible PoW algo change. |
|
I second the opinion expressed by @AndreaLanfranchi in the post above. |
|
Apparently there is a deliberate intention no to face the matter.
|
|
Some of us already said in the previous meeting that we shouldn't be the ones making the decision because it is political and not technical. I'll add it back so I can potentially outline the 3rd party audit we are organizing. |
|
Thanks @Souptacular that is much appreciated altho i don't understand how it is a political decision since the goal and rationale for being asic resistant is enshrined in the ETH Whitepaper. |
|
Thank you @Souptacular for your comment. At least we know (now) that some kind of auditing is going on. Thanks anyway. |
|
We seem to have no established social practices for making "political" decisions. From my point of view politics is about coercion. It's what a community resorts to when it can't achieve consensus but doesn't want to "fork". |
|
@gcolvin Wasn't the issuance reduction a "political" decision ? |
|
I felt like a central banker afterwards. |
|
@gcolvin Like it or not also in this case you will feel uncomfortable. Either you decide in favour, or against or do not decide at all. |
|
@AndreaLanfranchi I agree. I understand there were technical reasons for the issuance reduction, but they were beyond my expertise. Unless there are technical reasons to prefer GPUs over ASICs it's a difficult decision for us to make. But someone has to make it. |
You nailed it ! |
Who then? The position EF is taking, that it will only exercise technical influence, seems untenable. Any grouping of more than two individuals will include 'politics'. |
|
here is the response |
|
An audit process by a 3rd party is supported by the community and a good idea. Much like the issuance reduction however the decision to change PoW needs to come from the ETH devs. Decisionmaking can’t be outsourced to a third party. |
I agree. I think it's a decision we need to make. We should take in all available signals, discuss until all questions are answered and until people feel they know what they need to know -- but the decision needs to be made, we can't just keep postponing it. |
|
One of the things that has been most baffling to me is how we come to consensus in the Ethereum ecosystem. Isn’t the point of mining to vote with your hashpower? If the community does not mine on the ProgPoW chain, they will not support it. They will not switch to it. That’s it. That’s how you let the community vote: you put it in, and the longest chain wins. Proof-of-work was engineered to put an end to the stress of consensus. You simply let people vote - with their hashpower. ProgPoW could be initiated and application developers simply build on the longest chain. We’re reinventing consensus mechanisms again. One GPU. One vote. Food for thought. |
|
That would be a chain split. I think we should all try to avoid it |
|
Wow. You're not crusher. You are Terminator |
|
That's why I'm advocating of going the way of least resistance/biggest community consensus. ProgPoW original does not represent the interests of the decentralized miner community at large, a ProgPoW 3-phase implementation does. There really is no downside to a 3-phase implementation if you're a GPU miner in comparison to a ProgPoW Original implementation - profitability wise - on the opposite, it's better. If you can name just one, I'll let it rest! This is your chance, instead of trying to belittle me, show me some good argumentation. |
|
Oh I see. And exactly how many miners you're representative for ? You know your not the first who claims to speak for miners. As you appear to be pre-approved by miners on your 3 step path can you share the numbers of your supporters ? |
|
If you carefully think this through you'll arrive at the same conclusion. There are two paths forward: Let me know! |
|
So you basically say you've done those fancy maths which you mean are valid for all miners uh ? I instead personally think that if a miner thinks to upgrade it's infrastructure targeting Ethereum PoW either know something we all don't know (eg PoS Will never come) or is a complete idiot. Bye man. |
|
YES, energy consumption is viewed universally as an expense by all miners that I personally know. And I'm bold enough to assume it applies to all miners across the globe. You haven't provided a good argumentation why a 3-step implementation of ProgPoW would disadvantage a GPU miner vs. a one time ProgPoW original implementation that increases power by 50-60% overnight. I'm argumenting that a 3-step deployment will actually dramatically increase decentralization + introduce better ASIC resistance, all the while getting bigger community consensus. Instead of condescending me for "doing fancy maths", which really are just based on real work benchmarks of current ProgPoW, let me know why you are so fixated on this one "true" ProgPoW? Remember, OhGodAGirl said this is open source, it can and should be modified as pleased by the community. That's why it was made the way it is, so parameters could be easily tweaked and the community can come up with their own version if they don't like the proposed one. |
|
I exposed my arguments instead. 3 step adoption relies on the assumption miners would want to upgrade their infrastructure which I consider a stupid thing. My point instead is very simple. ProgPow is mainly addressed to prevent ASIC dominance for the limited residual life of PoW. As a bonus GPU miners will benefit for a marginal increase of their revenues. |
|
As a miner and as a developer I want Ethereum to take a position as it will give ether a value of consistency. Postponing problems only drains credibility to the whole project |
|
@MoneroCrusher You're arguing about the need to delay/split ProgPow into phases because of an increase of power usage. If your cards are locked at 70% power limit now with ethash, and are locked at 70% power limit after ProgPow, thus using the same amount of watts, then where is the increase? There is none. What you're saying is that to obtain the absolute maximum hashrate, you need to increase your power usage because of the increase of core usage. Ok, but I fail to see how that argument fits into your narrative. You say we need to go in phases so miners can upgrade their power infrastructure. What prevents them from running their cards at their current power limits with ProgPow, thus fitting into their power allotment, and upgrading their power capacity if they so desire at a later time. After which they can raise their power limit to gain a few mh/s. If everyone has the same "handicap" of increased power usage (and I use the handicap term loosely) then the playing field is leveled. In theory going in phases could work. And I would have had been OK with this plan if it was proposed 6 months ago. But we're long overdue for a fix here, and we have a solution ready today. Trying to define those phases by reinventing the algo and getting consensus and software ready pushes us back months. Instead of doing that, by adopting ProgPow today (and getting lower difficulty today), you will earn more then if we delay ProgPow by a few months, even if you run at the same power limit during those few months. |
No it doesn't. It gives them the time to do so if they wish it. Not everyone can just upgrade their power infrastructure overnight. In certain countries you even have to let 2 independent experts look at the installation before it is approved and can be used, which are usually slow to arrive, like you book them and they check in after 3-4 weeks or so.
ProgPoW 3-phase out does the same and it increases profits even more than straight ProgPoW_V3 implementation because it uses much less energy that the average hobby miner currently barely can afford to cover (assuming 10c per kW/h).
ProgPoW claims to utilize the GPU to a full extent? So you're now saying to artificially throttle it down so I can mine ProgPoW? Meaning ProgPoW with a 60% power increase would instantly decrease decentralization and allocate hashrate even further to farms with plenty of cheap electricity, like Genesis Mining.
That's the problem, it doesn't apply to everyone the same. The power increase hits hobby miners much worse than corporate mining entities, the profit margin for a hobby miner is much slimmer because their electricity is more expensive. By even further increasing it you are giving more power to megafarms and taking it away from hobby miners and smaller farms. A 3-phase deployment would give miners time to buy more efficient machines over time and they have a choice of upgrading their electricity installation or relocating, if they wish to. ProgPoW as it currently stands doesn't give you that possibility, it instantly decides: "you are able to mine, you aren't". At least we can all agree that the current ASIC infested network is bad for the ecosystem. |
As I have repeatedly stated: this is not reinventing the algo, it's literally taking stuff out and putting it back in over time. Because the current 60% power increase is just too hardcore, sorry. |
|
As it currently seems some of you are deep within the "ProgPoW Matrix" and have a binary thinking system of "implement it now or I will cry foul". This sounds a lot like wounded miners desperately trying to recoup their losses. If you need help deciding which choice would be better, try to align your thinking with a miner and ask yourself, would you rather spend 50,000 kW/h until PoS or would you rather spend 80,000 kW/h until PoS, given that the lower energy expenditure comes with a better longer-term resistance to ASICs, too. I think the majority of the network would agree to use less energy. Do you disagree, @AndreaLanfranchi @salanki @W944 ? |
|
I agree with Ethereum core devs that they need to completely step back from this debate and not give it a platform on their dev channels (youtube calls, github issues, reddit posts). This issue basically decides who gets to mint new coins, and the ETH dev team should not be acting like the US Federal Reserve. They should not be inviting third party developers with unproven codebases into their midst and letting them whisper into their ears. We can all admit that a lot of money is at stake, and if ETH devs provide a platform for this debate on their channels, they expose themselves to the potential of backhanded dealings, bribery, coercion. The only way for users to trust developers in the future, is for them to remain completely impartial on this issue. |
|
@MoneroCrusher if for any reason it would end up majority would not agree with you what would be your position ? You would abstain from further fights ? |
|
@AndreaLanfranchi I would join the majority network that offers the best economic incentives to mine. |
|
@gpushack are you invoking censorship ? |
|
No, I’m quoting ETH devs: |
This is simply a manipulation. My point is very clear. Do it now or don't do it all and speed process to PoS without wasting any further resources. Time is up |
|
@gpushack you're quoting one person. Is he the leader who can decide for all ? Afaik @holiman is in the same group and has a very different position |
Why do you need to throttle? You can mine at 10% power limit if you want. You can also mine at 100% if you want. Choice is yours to set your own power expense as you see fit.
So?
I think you're being a bit dramatic here. Plenty of people would run their GPUs at that 70% power limit anyways, whether it gave them peak hashrate or not. A lower power limit also means lower heat output and less wear on the fans. Look at the equihash guys, plenty on reddit running at 70% power limit.
You're conveniently leaving out the fact that compared to ethash the profits will be higher even if they don't spend an extra cent on extra power by keeping the same power levels, just by changing to ProgPow and the lower difficulty. Same power costs, more profit. You want to run at full power? Go ahead. You'll spend more on power, sure, but you'll also get more profits. So either way you come own on top versus ethash.
Why can't you mine with ProgPow at 70% power limit? It seems that it is you that has a binary vision. Either you mine at 100% power limit or don't mine at all?
You have not convinced me how ProgPow will prevent either from upgrading.
At least we agree on one thing :) |
Hey! :) All minus one please. [Edit: Forgot the disclosure: Working for Linzhi, the guys in China are asleep finally...] |
So centralization
People running GPUs at 70% would decrease their rewards in relation to megafarms because they won't limit their GPU power usage, thus switching power from hobby to corporate even more.
Not disagreeing here but I'm saying ProgPoW 3 phase > ProgPoW original > Ethash. I don't believe people paying 10-15c for power will run at a profit with ProgPoW.
In fact a lot of people have reported and benchmarked over 200W usage for RX 580 at the wall, I'm being very friendly throughout this thread with ProgPoW_original power consumption.
I can, but as I explained in detail, the given up hashrate would land in megafarm's hands, thus it causes centralization towards farms with cheaper electricity, the more electricity an algo uses.
That's fine and I'm sure it's an impossible feat.
Cheers! |
|
Alright my fingers and my brain hurt from typing so much, as a last word from me for today: There is zero downturn for any GPU miner with a ProgPoW 3-step deployment. I believe a majority of the current network owners would vote in favour of it because of reduced power constraints. So let's just all get behind one goal and bring decentralization & hobby mining back to Ethereum. I sure would support that with all my power :) |
|
Nice, good luck Ethereum community 😄 |
I didn't know I was an elder statesman, @atlanticcrypto. I thought I was a cantankerous old man ;-) |
As I stated, ProgPoW is mainly good for megafarms with cheap power. We are not here to accomodate those, which ProgPoW does. We are here to bring back decentralization to hobby miners. It's really not a big difference if the network is owned by a dozen GPU megafarms or a dozen ASIC farms. Let's focus on bringing back profitable GPU mining to Frank, 19, living in mom's basement, owner of a 12 GPU rig. The GPU megafarm owner will of course still profit from this, but less in relation, which is a good thing. That's why you see ProgPoW pushed by all major megafarms owners, while smaller farm or rig owners are not that fascinated by ProgPoW. I don't like how this has turned into GPU megafarms vs. ASIC farms. DECENTRALIZATION is the key word here |
|
Closing in favor of #77 |
Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 54 Agenda
Agenda
a) Constantinople - Ropsten fork?
b) Istanbul Hardfork Roadmap
c) Outlook: PoS finality gadget on PoW chain (Serenity)
d) ProgPoW audit?
a) Ethereum 1.x Stanford Meetings Overview
b) State Rent
c) EWasm
d) Pruning/Sync
e) Simulation
a) Geth
b) Parity Ethereum
c) Aleth/eth
d) Trinity/PyEVM
e) EthereumJS
f) EthereumJ/Harmony
g) Pantheon
h) Turbo Geth
i) Nimbus
j) Mana/Exthereum
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: