EIP-1559: Fee market change for ETH 1.0 chain

Over what duration should be up for discussion.

I am pretty sure ETH2 plans to implement this regardless of whether it lands on ETH1. Would need someone from the ETH2 team to confirm, but that is my current understanding.

If this is the case the EIP Title should be changed "EIP-1559: Fee market change for ETH 1.0 AND 2.0 chains

Letā€™s see how fast this dies now :slight_smile:

I believe the discussion is now over as I am 100% certain this Defi backed proposal was never intended to negatively impact them, only POW miners, not POS. Their plan has been to jack up yield farming and steal Ethereum from the fools giving up Ethereum for fake yield coins and then use it to stake in Eth2.0. They want the fees reduced in 1.0 not 2.0 when they will be staking using the coins they stole.

So now we have come full circle. Remember the dev call where Defi members stormed the meeting, insulted devs and miners, and stated they would cause a chain split if a fork was made to remove ASICs? Maybe they should have had a little more respect for those of us who have been here since day one, protecting the network.

Like I have said before gas fees can be reduced easily by January. Change Ethash algo, take ASICs off the network and GPU miners will agree to ETH issuance reduction equal to increase in rewards after 30 days stability in hash.

Maybe the Defi community needs to learn how to work with the miners instead of insisting they get everything they want while the rest of us must wait and take pay cuts.

There is never a reason to overpay for security, regardless of consensus mechanism

The miners agree 100% and are willing to reduce fees. Just move forward after almost 3 years and remove ASICs. We are not looking to profit by removing them, rather we want to increase security and reduce fees. We are talking about almost a 50% reduction in fees and it is ready to deploy. Why is this not gaining more traction?

As Iā€™ve said before I believe Ethash replacement has been set up to fail, and to some extent deliberately, by insisting on continuing to call it ProgPoW and by refusing to take any ownership or responsibility for the actual design of the replacement. Perhaps somewhat out of some misguided sense of responsibility to ensure that all credit is given to the pseudonymous trio that authored the original proposal, but more likely to avoid a deluge of anonymous ASIC miner hatred on the internet

Did you miss CD#96? ProgPow was agreed to move onto a testnet to ensure it can be rapidly implemented if desired. It is not dead, it just needs a good reason to implement. Altering the code and changing it to EthashPP or something would also help.

Also what is worse? Not changing the mining algo because changing it would admit publicly that Ethash failed from keeping ASICs off the network and hurt the reputation of Vitalik who developed it? Isnā€™t this why only a few devs have made serious attempts to replace it in the last 3 years? Does one person really wield this much power and control over what is supposed to be a decentralized coin?

What is the progress on the implementation of EIP-1559? I have scoured the web and it seems like no significant update has happened to the EIP itself since November 2020.

There are a lot of articles online about the excitement behind this EIP, but it seems the EIP itself is still in draft and thereā€™s no talk of actual implementation yet? How can this EIP continue to move forward?

See this series for updates: The State of 1559 šŸ”„ - HackMD

Progress is happening :slight_smile:!

There are multiple implementations. You can try them out yourself here: http://eip1559-tx.ops.pegasys.tech/

1 Like

Thanks! Good to have a link to the HackMD here because this thread is apparently the canonical discussion thread according to the actual EIP draft doc.

1 Like

Good point. Should have added it earlier :sweat_smile:!

1 Like

There was just an EIP-1559 specific dev call a few weeks ago on YouTube. There is meaningless progress being made. I say meaningless because the fork as it is being planned will not be approved by the GPU miners without changing the mining algo to remove ASICs from the network.

We have been trying now for three years to get an algo change and honor the Ethereum yellow paperā€¦ to create a coin that can be mined by ordinary GPUs.

1 Like

I like the fact that EIP-1559 replaces auction with gradually changes fees. In fact we do similar at SKALE.

I strongly oppose fee burning. It benefits investors at the expense of miners.

1 Like

This EIP will be a great improvement to the current fee structure.

I have searched this discussion but havenā€™t found any reference to proportional fees. Has this been considered and rejected? What I mean by proportional fees is that the user is charged gas in proportion to the amount being transacted. For example, if the fee is fixed at 0.1%, a 1 ETH transfer would be charged 0.001 ETH, and a 1000 ETH transfer would be 1 ETH. The percentage doesnā€™t need to be fixed, could be a sliding scale depending on amount. This would be equivalent to the base fee, and a tip could still be added.

Was this part of the discussion for EIP-1559 before this thread? Or maybe itā€™s part of another EIP? Charging a fixed base fee is fantastic for whales and good for most users but doesnā€™t necessarily work for all. Especially when dust has been collecting in your wallet for years, and there is just no way of converting it to something useful.

Miners are part of the community and deserve to be heard.

It is totally unfair they get constantly blamed for no reason. Many of them are small guys that invested their hard-earned money into hardware.

Fee burning takes money away from these people and puts this money into the pockets of whales because the total supply will decrease. It will also significantly decrease the security of the network because the hash rate of the network will dramatically drop.

2 Likes

Thank you sir. Unfortunately like you say the GPU mining community is made mostly of small miners (hobbyists) if you will. They donā€™t typically get involved in the inner workings of Ethereum and are difficult to mobilize.

This is unlike the Defi community that are very poweful, largely funded, and highly organized. It is this disparity why we continue to see EIPs like 1559 moving forward, hurting the small guys, to benefit the powerful who want to game Ethereum by ā€œyield farmingā€ā€¦making very large transactions as fast as possible to gain the highest yield.

It is not always the loudest voices that speak for the entire community as a whole. Sometimes the smallest voices are the real community that represent the largest number of people. We should try to be quiet and listen to what they are saying, perhaps more importantly what they are not.

2 Likes

Here is a post I just made in response to the latest Implementers call #9.

  1. Why are you working so hard on changing mining sorting when POW is approaching end of life? Remember EIP-1559 is supposed to be included in POS as well.

  2. If you are so intent on making changes to miners, please merge with EIP-1057. Otherwise EIP-1559 will not be approved by miners and cause a contentious chain split.

  3. Miners are gearing up for a full blown push to stop EIP-1559 if it does not include an algo change to remove ASICs. This will push this project well into 2022 where it becomes irrelevant anyway as POS is implemented on mainnet.

  4. Mica the talking down to miners (@50:50) needs to stop. We have tried patiently for three years to remove ASICs from the network and the Defi team recently stopped it saying it would cause a chain split. You are obviously ignoring this as a valid reason when ASICs go completely against the Yellow Paper, to prevent ASICs from running on the network. The last number was over 45% of the network are ASICs.

  5. Even without mempool sorting changes your best bet is to reach out to the GPU mining community and partner with them early to prevent a failure of this EIP.

  6. Active community miners that are willing to publicly discuss GPU miner objections to EIP-1559 without an algo change to remove ASICs:
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BitsBeTrippin/featured (44K subscribers) https://www.youtube.com/c/HashRaptor/featured (8K subscribers) https://www.youtube.com/c/VoskCoin/featured (181K subscribers) https://www.youtube.com/c/RedPandaMining/featured (42K subscribers)

1 Like

As an eth-miner and having invested in hardware that keeps the network competitive I must say that this is a low punch against all us miners. The network could never had grown to this size if it was not for miners that invested a lot of time, effort and risked buying the needed HW. I for one will be selling my GPUā€™s or mine for another network and have already started a Cardano stake pool to be future proof.

5 Likes

Fee burning is not an integral part of this proposal, so it shouldnā€™t be included. The option to spread ethereum rewards from high transaction fee periods is a much better option that doesnā€™t alienate the mining community.

People like to talk about the economic incentives for miners to take a course of action, and the issue that fee burning purports to prevent does not make economic sense for miners to perform. After all, a miner that is willing to pay the basefee back to the original tx maker is taking money out of their own pockets.