ETC Core Devs Call 15 - ECIP-1049 Breakout Session Keccak-256 #382
Comments
|
My key opposition is to the timing of the ecip as it should not be discussed or accepted until after the treasury is settled. This isn't a 51% attack mitigation and isn't critical to the near term success of ETC. |
|
When are the authors able to attend a CDC prior to Oct 9th? I'll be happy to host if necessary to give the opposition a fair stage and allow the authors plenty of time to respond to the opposition's documented concerns. @stevanlohja @p3c-bot @antsankov Suggested: ETC Core Devs Call 15
Agenda
If anyone would like to record for redundancy sake, I will record the meeting with https://obsproject.com/ . |
gitr0n1n
changed the title
gitr0n1n
changed the title
gitr0n1n
changed the title
|
Where have you been on the last 3 calls? It's not that we don't do calls and don't ask everyone to state their concerns. ECIP-1049 will also be discussed on the Call 14 this Friday. You are welcome to join and raise your concerns. |
|
@q9f Thank you for the offer, but it appears CDC 14 is related to 51% attacks and there likely won't be enough time to adequately address the CDC 15 topics. During the last 3 CDC calls relate to ECIP-1049 the proposal was not in a Now that the ECIP-1049 draft is |
|
@gitr0n1n I prepared a call platform on discord: https://discord.gg/3ZbKvb. Please the time. Afterwards, I will announce it on the ETC discord and other platforms, too. Thank you. Furthermore, It should be called ".. Keccak .." - > #372 |
gitr0n1n
changed the title
|
I will be there on that date, October 2nd at 4PM UTC to address questions brought up. This will be voice only, and on the discord ideally. I respect @gitr0n1n a lot for the work, entirely on his own, meticulously maintaining the ETC wikipedia page. By the end of the call we'll either see eye to eye, or at least agree to disagree. It's important to note that we had 2 previous calls, ETC Core Devs Call 13 (9/11/2020) and ETC Core Devs Call 12 (08/03/2020), about the exact subject of ECIP-1049 @gitr0n1n wasn't on either of them. I had taken time to prepare extensively, brought experts on, and extensively addressed all concerns brought up during the call. |
|
@antsankov These unaddressed opposition comments date back to 2019. You've had ample time to address them in written form.
Its great to hear you're prepared for CDC 15. To be clear why this call is being held now: You submitted to Lets keep it factual. All of us would prefer you engaged in the written outlets provided in GitHub so international members could participate in coverstion with you. However, you have repeatedly ignored those requests. And, have insisted the community hold a special CDC to communicate with you via voice. It's odd, but here we are honoring your special requests as the ECIP author of the proposal. Please note oppositon in the formal GitHub threads is just as valid as vocal opposition on the CDC's. To date, this opposition has gone unacknowledged. Also please note how much development focus and resources you've consumed toward your proposal. Six+ 51% attack proposals have been forced to take a back seat to your agenda to rush this through in the network's time of weakness. I look forward to October 2nd, as do many of the documented opposition since 2019; opposition that have been present since the date you originaly proposed this idea. Thank you for finally agreeing to have the conversation and acknowledge the opposition to this proposal. The goal is to prevent a chain split in the future. |
q9f
added
meta:1 governance
|
I support this, i cant see any dev count miners opinion and its sad because its supossed that ethereum classic is democracy but it seems is not Miners don't support algo change, better improve solutions in core and leave the algo alone |
The PoW algorithm is "core"... |
|
@gitr0n1n Would you please add the "Where" - https://discord.gg/Ue2sJm6 - and the "When" to your first post!? Thank you. |
|
Do you mind if we rename it to: ETC Core Devs Call 15 - ECIP-1049 Keccak Breakout Call? |
|
I won't be able to attend the call on Friday, unfortunately, but I want to raise concerns that block 12 million activation is way too fast and should be carefully coordinated with the client developers. |
Noted, I'll vocalize this concern for you @q9f , same as i will vocalize a view other comments due to people not being able to attend the call. I hope we have people on the call that can vocalize for themselves. But I understand how some are not native English speakers and prefer to communicate via ECIP discussion threads. It's the goal to not penalize them for being unable to communicate via audio. |
No I don't mind that. Let me do that real quick. @q9f |
gitr0n1n
changed the title
|
Not sure this counts as a core devs call as majority of the core devs don't plan on showing up and plus this is not lead by the hard fork coordinator. It's essentially just a call created by a volunteer to voice his opposition to Keccak256. |
|
For the record, let me repeat something I proposed a while back on discord: given that ECIP-1049 is now being mainly justified as being an anti-51% measure, and that we have 1) ECIP-1099 coming, which will provide a) a band-aid and b) is expected to substantially increase ETC hash rate over the next months, plus 2) it seems that MESS will be deployed as a specific anti-51% measure, the 51% risk may reduce dramatically. Considering that ECIP-1049 is likely to drive away most of the current ETC miners, and is criticized by many, it would therefore be advisable to refrain from rushing any commitment to ECIP-1049 deployment. Specifically, I'd suggest to defer the decision of whether to move ECIP-1049 to "Accepted" until March 2021. By that time, we will know i) whether ECIP-1099 will have resulted in the return of current 4 GB ETC miners, who will be briefly excluded by the DAG crossing 4 GB before ECIP-1099 activates, ii) whether 3 GB miners will have returned to ETC, and iii) whether the 4 GB crossing of ETH that is expected to occur in December 2020, will have resulted in 4 GB miners previously mining ETH to switch to ETC. Furthermore, we will iv) have a few months of operational experience with MESS. If the turnout of i) through iii) should be low, and possibly iv) be unsatisfactory, the proponents of ECIP-1049 would have a far easier time to justify the need for such a major change to the ETC ecosystem, and avoid further conflict or even a split of ETC into competing coins. Note that anyone planning to make ASICs for ECIP-1049 should be largely unaffected by delaying this decision. They can perform the steps that require minimum investment, i.e., the design of the chip logic, and even backend, and still have enough time to start the capital-intense production and have their chips ready for the projected introduction date of ECIP-1049 if such a switch should be decided in March 2020. |
|
I'd also like to repeat another idea: most if not all of the conflict surrounding ECIP-1049 stems from it proposing the replacement of a key part of the ETC infrastructure, the PoW algorithm, in a way that is incompatible with the continued economic viability of current ETC mining hardware. A way to avoid forcing current ETC miners out of the ecosystem they have been supporting so far would be to start ECIP-1049 on a new coin (how about ETK ? K and C are often considered the same sound, and K would stand for Keccak.), and let ETC continue as before. The rules for ETK, including the allocation of initial assets, could be defined to the liking of its creators, and they could also define a schedule for launch and operation without any need to coordinate with the ETC community. ETC and ETK could (and should) still remain strong ties, e.g., EVM compatibility, and if ETK turns our to be superior, people could switch from ETC to it on their own volition, without the trauma of a forced migration. Adopting this approach would remove the ECIP-1049 controversy from ETC and ETK, and make room for issues that should perhaps be more important for the future of ETC/ETK, e.g., the development of attributes that will make people want to choose ETC/ETK over, say, ETH, or other coins. |
|
Call Results: ETC Core Devs Call 15 - ECIP-1049 Keccak Breakout Session
Agenda
Please review the issue thread to find the most up to date information.Recording of Core Devs Call 15Conclusion
Please direct future commentary to the ECIP 1049 discussion thread: |
gitr0n1n
changed the title
|
This mining algorithm change has never been touted as a solution against 51% attacks. It's impossible to solve against such attacks. It instead helps mitigate such attacks by making ETC the "apex predator" in the Keccak/SHA3 realm. This algo change would benefit the network in many ways such as faser node validation, faster sync times, and more efficient mining. GPUs would still be able to mine SHA3/Keccak, as would FPGAs. However, to again reiterate, Keccak was never meant to solve 51% attacks. |
|
"This mining algorithm change has never been touted as a solution against 51% attacks." - @developerkevin
"This algo change would benefit the network in many ways such as faser node validation, faster sync times, and more efficient mining. GPUs would still be able to mine SHA3/Keccak, as would FPGAs." - @developerkevin
|
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Call Results:
ETC Core Devs Call 15 - ECIP-1049 Keccak Breakout Session
Agenda
Please review the issue thread to find the most up to date information.
Recording of Core Devs Call 15
Conclusion
Last Call, while the network analyzes the impacts of otherAcceptedproposals like ECIP-1099 and MESS.AcceptedorRejectedstatus.Please direct future commentary to the ECIP 1049 discussion thread:
=============================
Original Comment:
Can the ECIP editors and ECIP process participants note where the opposition to ECIP-1049 are to vocalize their opinions/opposition and have this conversation with the pro-SHA3 people to attempt to build consensus?
Reasoning for this Open Issue:
The opposition was not addressed in any of the three SHA3 conversation threads on github and the comments have not been addressed on the recent SHA3 CDC calls. Can we hold a CDC focused on addressing these consensus issues and try to resolve them prior to ECIP-1049's Oct 9th
Acceptedcall? Hopefully this will prevent a chain split.Issue threads ref:
#342
#13
#8
cdc ref:
#333
#362
Luke (xocel) from ETC Labs asked where to oppose the algo change in Discord after the CDC 13 call ended. It was noted that this 9/11 call was not about pro/opposing SHA3 but to decide between SHA3-256 or Keccak256 in the pro-SHA3 camp.
[xx:04 AM] xocel: how do we express opposition to both keccak256 and sha3?
[xx:05 AM] McDappas:
how do we express opposition to both keccak256 and sha3?
@xocel I think thats a different call
[xx:05 AM] xocel: ok. cool.
I think we all want to prevent chain splits, so this feels like an important step as there are only a few weeks left until ECIP-1049 moves to
Acceptedstatus on Oct-9. Lastly, I see anAcceptedECIP can still be moved toRejectedstatus. Can someone familiar with the process explain that in-depth should ECIP-1049 move forward and there is material contention?https://github.com/ethereumclassic/ECIPs#process-overview
Thanks,
r0n1n
Here are some noted vocal opposition from familar names that are more technical than myself (opposition was noted in github or on discord):
#general)#general)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: