But articles have already been written about Berlin which we can leave as true if we leave the ice-age fork as an interim fork.
Do you have any links? I think this really goes against the EIP-centric process.
Once implmented we can ask people to upgrade straight to the Ice-age fork if they haven't upgraded to Istanbul
Yes, as I’ve said above, we should absolutely point people to a single version for each client. Otherwise, the risk of confusion is huge, especially for Parity which has two version numbers (whch would be 4 if we list both Istanbul and Mountain Glacier versions), but even for others which will only have a minor update (i.e. 1.3.4 vs. 1.3.6 for Besu)
Great article, @tjayrush.
A simpler alternative is just to get rid of the difficulty bomb entirely, like ETC did.
Because the amount of work going into maintaining this thing in ETH is massive, and the original reasoning behind the mechanism does not really make sense anymore.
At the point of POS transition, some group will OBVIOUSLY just remove the bomb and fork ETH1 anyway.
You should not need to coerce anybody to ensure migration to ETH2.
Just watching all of the brain time and developer resources in this last week or so going into working out what is happening, into thinking "Should we get this into Istanbul? Make a new HF in January? How do we coordinate?" etc, makes me shake my head.
ETH does not have to have this problem. Sure - there is an emergency here to deal with, and it needs dealing with.
But the second that is done, please for goodness sake have a public debate and seriously consider yet removing the bomb entirely. What is the ROI here? What is the "win"?
For ETC, the motivation for removing the bomb was that there IS no planned transation to POS.
For ETH, the motivation would be to avoid all this heart-ache.
Or just replace it with something massively simpler. Like:
if (blocknumber > N) then difficulty = MAX_INT.