Ethereum devs move ProgPoW into ‘Eligible for Inclusion’ list
A lot has been going on with the Ethereum network lately, with the Istanbul hard fork recently going live on the network and Muir Glacier expected to be rolled out by New Year’s Eve. Amid these updates, the Ethereum Core Developers in their 77th meeting discussed several other EIPs, along with Eligible for Inclusion [EFI] EIPs.
PegaSys’s Tim Beiko live-tweeted the meeting and revealed the EIPs that were eligible for inclusion. EIP 1559 was one of them. The EIP proposed by Eric Conner primarily focuses on setting up the market rate for block inclusion, along with burning most of the ETH in the transaction fee. Highlighting the need for an EIP, Conner wrote earlier this year,
“The current first auction fee market works but is extremely inefficient and a large UX barrier for adoption. This proposal introduces a fixed fee concept through the use of a MINFEE. Users can pay a premium over this if they want but in general it greatly simplifies the UX.”
In the recent meeting, it was revealed that the EIP was underspecified and while the team expected to simulate or model the change, the team hadn’t incurred funding as it covered just the implementation.
Further questions on the EIP were also answered in the meeting, Beiko’s tweet read,
“Another Q: the EIP has BASEFEE and the premium fee. What prevents miners from colluding to set BASEFEE to 0, or only accepting txns with large premiums?
A: There is an averaging of the BASEFEE over a large number of blocks. Miners would need a large % of the txn volume over time to adjust the price. IOW, they’d need to be the majority of the txn demand.”
Highlighting the target of BASEFEE, Beiko wrote that a half-full block “takes a snapshot of the gas price at the time of deployment, and it can only vary so much per block. Need more engagement on the implementation to answer adversarial scenarios with more details.”
Furthermore, Péter Szilágyi reportedly suggested that a 1.5x multiplier was much safer than a 3x.
Along with other EIPs was EIP 1057, which was directed at ProgPoW. Beiko tweeted,
“And one final EFI: moving EIP-1057, a.k.a. ProgPow, into EFI. The EIP was already moved to “Tentatively Accepted” before we moved to the EIP-Centric process, but we had never made a proper decision on it.”
Furthermore, Hudson Jameson affirmed that the call was to merely move ProgPoW into the EFI list. However, ithe dev call didn’t address the status of the EIP nor if it would go into any hard fork. Jameson concluded by tweeting,
“There are still things that need to coalesce before that happens.”