Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • Feb 28 2019 19:45
    @Arachnid banned @merkle_tree_twitter
  • Feb 17 2019 00:56
    @jpitts banned @Aquentson_twitter
  • Apr 09 2018 04:14
    @holiman banned @JennyJennywren_twitter
  • Oct 21 2017 19:12
    @Arachnid banned @Musk11
econoar
@econoar
Hm ok, strange. Didn’t constantinople just push it 2mn blocks though? How can we still be 1.5 million blocks away when we’ve had 1.6mn since that fork?
Danno Ferrin
@shemnon
We weren’t at 30 second blocks.
econoar
@econoar
right, 20ish
Danno Ferrin
@shemnon
my math may be off about the actual onset, but that wasn’t an ice age blip.
we may only be 1 to 1.2 away from 30 second blocks.
Ghost
@ghost~5b27d590d73408ce4f9dbd7c
how much the gas price will be reduced on ETH2.0?
Danno Ferrin
@shemnon
but as block time goes up each ice age epoch takes longer.
There has been no realistic discussions about gas price in Eth 2.0. IMHO phase 1 needs to go into client impl and testnet before anything reasonable can be conjectured.
EIP-1559, however it lands, will have more of an immediate impact on gas price.
James Hancock
@MadeofTin
Also, the decrease in Hashrate will affect when the Iceage is visible as well.
Piotr Gankiewicz
@spetz
Hi, if anyone has some spare ETH on Ropsten network, I'd be grateful for a donation to account: 0x321d9eF3Ea0190C722B95A514e77c442C4a262f8 (we've been testing Nethermind client)
Tomasz Kajetan Stańczak
@tkstanczak
Ropsten ETH anyone? :)
Ideally some slightly bigger chunk of 100 or so would be great and much appreciated.
Ethernal love and so.
Piotr Gankiewicz
@spetz
Thank you very much!
Tomasz Kajetan Stańczak
@tkstanczak
@fubuloubu thanks a lot!
El De-dog-lo
@fubuloubu
NP. I wish I was that rich in real ETH lol
Tomasz Kajetan Stańczak
@tkstanczak
yeah, next time we will try to ask for the mainnet transfer ;)
Hudson Jameson
@Souptacular
@phillux @sorpaas in the new Parity release, what does the chain flag --chain foundation mean?
Wei Tang
@sorpaas
@Souptacular That's what we call the Ethereum blockchain in Parity. You can omit that flag and the client is by default on foundation.
Hudson Jameson
@Souptacular
@sorpaas :/
I don't like that naming as it implies that the Ethereum Foundation has an "official role" in defining what is the main Ethereum blockchain. I understand why it is in though.
Wei Tang
@sorpaas
@Souptacular We have been calling that for quite long time, though. It's just a name anyway. Hope it's fine.
If we change it, we would need to create an unnecessary migration tool, because the name is used for the chain folder.
Danno Ferrin
@shemnon
FYI I’ve been calling it mainnet, to clarify whey I am talking about classic. Is that an OK name?
El De-dog-lo
@fubuloubu
But classic has a mainnet too?
How about --modern?
Tomasz Kajetan Stańczak
@tkstanczak
maybe --vintage and --pioneer?
Danno Ferrin
@shemnon
—historic
Next year we need an off devcon MTG draft or sealed tournoment.
In addition to a Gods Unchained bracket.
Bob Summerwill
@bobsummerwill
Be happy, guys.
Parity used to have "dogmatic" for Classic for a long time.
I think it even used to be "assist-dao-hacker" for a very short while before that :-)
        "eth" | "ethereum"  | "foundation" | "mainnet" => SpecType::Foundation,
        "etc" | "classic" => SpecType::Classic,
Bob Summerwill
@bobsummerwill

There is a great talk by Charles Hoskinson at ETC Summit 2017 which I only saw for the first time around two weeks ago.

https://youtu.be/vYvbzjETbxI

In it he talks about "The Two Ethereums" always existing, but the irreconcilable difference between those visions only becoming apparent at the time of the DAO fork.

Those two visions were "A Better Bitcoin" and "World Computer". We call those visions ETC and ETH2 these days. And I guess ETH1 is "World Computer Prototype"?

The "right answer" on "what to do" at the time of the DAO fork was different for these two visions. Hence the split.

The beautiful truth in this insight is that there is no conflict whatsoever between these two visions - they are entirely complimentary. We FINALLY seem to be getting to the point where we can respect that duality, and we can collaborate on the huge technical commonality, while maintaining the differing philosophies.

Bob Summerwill
@bobsummerwill
"Better Bitcoin" = Bitcoin + Smart Contracts + Rich Statefulness

So that is pretty much the scope of ETC.
It is a much more tractable problem.

"So what is the scaling plan for ETC?"

L2. State Channels already work on ETH2 (Fate Channels + Connext already in production).
Fate Channels don't need CREATE2 so will work today on ETC as well.
Connext will work on ETC when we get Constantinople opcodes at Agharta in Jan 2020:
https://ecips.ethereumclassic.org/ECIPs/ecip-1056

And then both ETH1 and ETC will benefit from standardized state channels when this initiative bears fruit: https://statechannels.org/
Miss_quan
@Miss__quan_twitter
Bob Summerwill
@bobsummerwill

The plan for scaling L1 on ETC is not to scale L1.
Or at least to only do that in a sustainable "Moore's law" style manner.
Only to the degree which the current tech stack can support.
Security always comes first for ETC.
"Better Bitcoin", not "World Computer"

Hope that gives everyone some more insight into the thinking.

Hudson Jameson
@Souptacular
@sorpaas totally understand. It's not a huge deal :)
James Hancock
@MadeofTin
I have always thought about it as “immutability” and “decentralization” as the primary directives for ETC and ETH. But, that is just my observation.
Hudson Jameson
@Souptacular

@/all All Core Devs Call in 8 hours

Agenda: ethereum/pm#138

Hudson Jameson
@Souptacular
Btw just updated agenda to include most recent comments.
James Hancock
@MadeofTin
@econoar Just following up I am still working on the IceAge update.
Tim Beiko
@timbeiko
@Souptacular count me in for the EIPIP meeting :smile:
Wei Tang
@sorpaas
@timbeiko re https://twitter.com/TimBeiko/status/1195352606501228547
That tweet is not actually accurate -- EIP-1702 is always a part of EIP-2348. We're rather discussing, that it's unnecessary to add another account versioning solution (EIP-1707 code prefix) when you already have an account versioning solution (EIP-1702).
Tim Beiko
@timbeiko
Thanks for the clarification, Wei! I’ll share the update.
Danno Ferrin
@shemnon
EIP1702 is referenced as a standalone EIP, because it’s been published. The other bits I pulled in are from EIPs that never got to the published state. The cherry pick of BEGINDATA got published so I reference that via EIP as well.
they are in the “requires” section.