@chfast I guess that is ultimately up to each client and the nets it wants to support. A client that wants to support
Ropsten would support transitioning from
Byzantium > Constantinople > Petersburg
For mainnet, I guess we all agree that at no point in time, there will be a transaction executed under the
Constantinople rules. My understanding is that
geth plans to configure
Petersburg to activate on the same blocknumber for the mainnet. But that seems like an implementation detail of
geth. At the end of the day, what matters is that no transaction on mainnet would be executed under these rules.
@jpitts I believe what you are proposing is more or less what I also proposed before. I would rephrase it as: What is currently live on Rinkeby, Ropsten, Kovan, Görli and xDAI is further on referred to as
ConstantinopleRC1 and the next fork that is planned to go live on mainnet Feb 27th will be referred to as
But I'm under the impression @5chdn (and others) feels kinda strongly that we can not reuse the name
Constantinople for that upcoming fork and should continue to use this name for the rules that are currently live on these other nets.
Petersburgis that it might cause confusion in the wider ecosystem.
FallenConstantinopleor whatever else to let us set free the name
Constantinoplefor the 2nd attempt. However, I'm lacking the experience of e.g. @5chdn so I might be underestimating other troubles that such move may cause.
ConstantinopleV2would help with deliniating rather than trying to back in time and double spending a code name.
It's really very easy.
Constantinople + St. Petersfork
It's fine if media reports about
Constaninople, but we all need to acknowledge as engineers that it's more than Constantinople, even though, in the sum, it's less.