As I said before, if miners wanted to stay on the old chain,
IMHO it's not a problem of miners. No miner would stay on a chain where minted tokens have no value at all.
I think the real question is whether or not there's the need of a coercive tool to "force" the migration.
@ppratscher "I suggest to replace the current block logic with a simple
if blockNbr > BOMB_NUMBER then block.difficulty = uint64.maxvalue this way we keep to bomb alive but avoid the unpredictable block times"
That is an eminently sensible suggestion, IMHO, but maybe with the block number a LONG WAY AWAY, like 2 years.
And then reduce the block number at the time of the last HF prior to transition.
yes which is not a bad thing imo
This is a huge change in vision. There is no "official" plan to suddenly brick legacy chain. It could even become one of the shards. The purpose, to my understanding, is to make PoW progressively less and less valuable for miners and encourage stakers.
Transition won't be a night-time switch : it could be only if phase 2 will transfer state from ETH 1.x to ETH 2.x and burn all assets on ETH 1.x
I don’t feel I have a good enough grasp on the facts to have an informed opinion, but just wanted to point out that this would be the first push back of the bomb without an issuance change.
FWIW, the small anecdata I got from my tweet about this on last ACD was that no one really seeemed to care about this much except from a few bitcoiners.