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
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.
Wei Tang
@sorpaas

Regarding the discussion in the meeting on tooling support for EIP-1707 code prefix vs 44-VERTXN account versioning extension. Thanks to MrChico for spotting this -- the concern on 44-VERTXN's ecosystem tooling support can be wholly addressed just by making the version field optional with default value 0. https://specs.that.world/44-vertxn/

This I believe, from all information I have in hand, means that 44-VERTXN is nearly superior in all aspects compared with EIP-1707 code prefix.

Ghost
@ghost~55c3ed250fc9f982beac84b3
I know one use case for versioning that I recently thought about - it is deprecation of opcodes. There are some opcodes that we would like to deprecate, but it is hard to enforce it without either breaking some deployed code, or versioning. (For example, if one wants to deprecate CALLCODE, or even GAS opcodes)
Paweł Bylica
@chfast
@ppratscher Aleth 1.7.0 supports Istanbul. I wander who is this guy running the single Aleth node :)
James Hancock
@MadeofTin
:)
Wei Tang
@sorpaas

I know one use case for versioning that I recently thought about

The biggest use case for versioning is definitely to avoid the next situation similar to EIP-1884. EIP-2348 discussed today does not do anything about that at all. However, fortunately, we have this covered. ethereum/EIPs#2341

Danno Ferrin
@shemnon
EIP-1884 was about mispriced gas code. As long as there is a window between the announced fix (via spec) and mainnet deployment then there will be a wide open window to set up abusive contracts. Unless those contracts are forcefully deleted (good luck) the network would still be at risk. Versioning won’t be able to address that.
Wei Tang
@sorpaas
@shemnon That's where you got it completely wrong. If you want to understand how the issue can be fixed, refer to the devcon talk (https://twitter.com/sorpaas/status/1188611187413585920) or the forward-compatible EVM proposal ethereum/EIPs#2341
Danno Ferrin
@shemnon
One thought I’ve been mulling around is gas surcharges in addition to the in EVM gas pricing. It would involve tracking two gas consumptions but the EVM keeps it’s prices and the surcharge is applied w/o causing OOG in CALL code. The details to be worked out is would the surcharge be checked only once or as the surcharge is applied to the calling account’s gas limit. Kind of like in US sales transaction you have the cost of the item, then taxes, then all sorts of add ons.
Wei Tang
@sorpaas
No disrespect, but you're just reinventing the wheels here..
Danno Ferrin
@shemnon
Gasless is more than just versioning.
Ghost
@ghost~55c3ed250fc9f982beac84b3
I think as I understand it, EIP-2341 as basically disallowing the GAS opcode (and perhaps other mechanism that allow contracts to observe current left-over gas), but also preventing the CALL/DELEGATECALL/STATICCALL opcodes to dispense gas to the dependent invocation (essentially, either removing the first argument altogether, or making it "mute"). I am watching the video with your talk now, @sorpaas
Yeah, I see the answer to my question in the talk now :)
Ghost
@ghost~55c3ed250fc9f982beac84b3
What I would look at, regarding the Versionless EVM proposal, is a potential for adversarial behaviour BEFORE such change (EIP-2341) gets rolled out. As far as understand, anything that was deployed before that, is "untouchable" by the EIP-2341, and any further changes (like gas cost hikes). If versioning is inherited from parent contract to the child, then it would be quite easy to deploy generic factories that would be used to take advantage of the old rules, with the cheaper opcodes, no?
Ghost
@ghost~55c3ed250fc9f982beac84b3
I have a feeling that the boat of full backwards-compatibility has sailed the minute the initial EVM design has been rolled out in Frontier. EVM with its ability to generate code and spawn new contracts, and compute jumps, seems like being so "polymorphic" (much more than quasi-Turing completeness would require) that it is quite hard to place any restrictions without either some kind of work-around existing, or breaking backwards compatibility.
Wei Tang
@sorpaas

If versioning is inherited from parent contract to the child, then it would be quite easy to deploy generic factories that would be used to take advantage of the old rules, with the cheaper opcodes, no?

@AlexeyAkhunov I don't think the goal here is to "prevent people from using older versions", but rather to "encourage people to use newer versions". Older versions are fine and people can continue to create new contracts of it as long as there are no current known EVM vulnerabilities (otherwise, we need emergency hard fork and backward compatibility has to be broken anyway). In the mean time, to encourage using new account versions, we can do changes such as systematically decrease opcode gas cost, so that older account versions are slightly more expensive to use, and contracts are better off migrating to the forward-compatible EVM version when it is possible.

Back to your questions -- the direct answer is a quantitative "yes", but I do think the above should have addressed the concerns behind the question.

Adrian Sutton
@ajsutton
There doesn’t have to be a current known vulnerability. I can deploy a generic factory contract now and then at any point in the future use it to deploy a new contract under old rules and exploit any vulnerability that becomes known in the future.
Wei Tang
@sorpaas

@ajsutton Okay let me rephrase it -- older versions are fine and people can continue to create new contracts of it as long as there are no current known EVM vulnerabilities. The thing is, whenever there's a vulnerability, we'd want to patch it both in the legacy EVM and the forward-compatible EVM. Because it's patched in legacy EVM, contracts under old rules cannot exploit it either.

This is why I also emphasis that account versioning is not for emergency hard forks. Those are situations where backward compatibility has to be broken.

Martin Holst Swende
@holiman

avoid the next situation similar to EIP-1884

account versioning is not for emergency hard forks. Those are situations where backward compatibility has to be broken.

Well, as I see it, if we don't 1884 now, we will eventually have to do it in an emergency instead. So I still don't see how that reasoning applies to 1884. I guess you mean that next time, we can ship it "softly" even earlier, and let people migrate, and only much later actually change/remove it "breakingly", and then not bothering the "active ecosystem". If so, I finally understood your reasoning :)