3 ms·

Miners were very opposed to EIP-1559 and in the end when the talks failed they mostly just ignored them. It's kind of true.

by Tenoke 5y ago

latchkey 5y ago
Not true at all. There was never any real consensus among miners on this front. As a very large miner, I was always for 1559 because I understand the underlying mechanics. The miners who I watched were just kind of bandwagon on the theme of "wait, I'll earn less cause you're burning my fees"? Which in reality isn't entirely the case (price and usage have gone up, along with the lack of wallet support).
- Tenoke 5y ago
  The Community calls didn't reach agreement with miners, and the fact that they kept protesting it is why the Ethereum Foundation decided to move the ETH 2 timeline forward. https://cryptobriefing.com/ethereum-miners-protesting-eip-1559-has-accelerated-upgrade-eth-2-0/ https://cryptobriefing.com/ethereum-miners-protesting-eip-15... >As a very large miner, I was always for 1559 because I understand the underlying mechanics. I don't know what mechanics you think others didn't understand. Your profitability has dropped and the move is basically moving miners' profit to the largest holders (e.g. everyone who pushed for the change). It's not like the fees have dropped since EIP-1559 if that's something you thought the change will bring for some reason.
  - latchkey 5y ago
    LOL! Pretty sure those community calls did not include ALL miners. With regards to the rest, it is all political theater. The mechanics I'm referring to are in the 50+ page document that I read, that I'm sure most people (miners) are not even aware of: https://hackmd.io/@timbeiko/1559-updates/https%3A%2F%2Fhackmd.io%2F%40timbeiko%2F1559-update-004#Economic-Analysis-%F0%9F%93%91 https://hackmd.io/@timbeiko/1559-updates/https%3A%2F%2Fhackm... As for profitability changes, that's almost impossible to measure right now. There is too many variables. One is that there isn't any wallet support for 1559 yet (MM came out today and is apparently, um, lacking). People are still over paying for transactions. Difficulty + price changes + pool luck + changes in hardware stability also make things nearly impossible to track accurately. I have a margin of error, but it doesn't look too bad right now actually.
    - Tenoke 5y ago
      >LOL! Pretty sure those community calls did not include ALL miners. They included the biggest miners and overall > 50% of the mining power as far as I could tell. >The mechanics I'm referring to are in the 50+ page document that I read, I wish you'd specify what mechanic in particular you think others misunderstood and you didn't, as I included the main ones from their arguments.
      - latchkey 5y ago
        Exactly. 50% isn't enough to reach consensus. I also know pools that voted against it, which kind of regret that now that they understand things better. A big issue is that miners and some of the pools were still raw over progpow. Point #1 is a big one. A huge number of people thought that fees would go down.
chrisco255 5y ago
They brought the miners onto the weekly cat herders (the name for core dev weekly sync) meeting they hold. I watched the stream. They listened to the feedback, some other miners that were for it including Stakefish were present. The arguments weren't strong at all from the miners that were opposed and in the end, they dropped it.

Miners were very opposed to EIP-1559 and in the end when the talks failed they mostly just ignored them. It's kind of true.

by Tenoke 5y ago

Miners were very opposed to EIP-1559 and in the end when the talks failed they mostly just ignored them. It's kind of true.

latchkey 5y ago

Not true at all. There was never any real consensus among miners on this front. As a very large miner, I was always for 1559 because I understand the underlying mechanics. The miners who I watched were just kind of bandwagon on the theme of "wait, I'll earn less cause you're burning my fees"? Which in reality isn't entirely the case (price and usage have gone up, along with the lack of wallet support).

Tenoke 5y ago
The Community calls didn't reach agreement with miners, and the fact that they kept protesting it is why the Ethereum Foundation decided to move the ETH 2 timeline forward. https://cryptobriefing.com/ethereum-miners-protesting-eip-1559-has-accelerated-upgrade-eth-2-0/ https://cryptobriefing.com/ethereum-miners-protesting-eip-15... >As a very large miner, I was always for 1559 because I understand the underlying mechanics. I don't know what mechanics you think others didn't understand. Your profitability has dropped and the move is basically moving miners' profit to the largest holders (e.g. everyone who pushed for the change). It's not like the fees have dropped since EIP-1559 if that's something you thought the change will bring for some reason.
- latchkey 5y ago
  LOL! Pretty sure those community calls did not include ALL miners. With regards to the rest, it is all political theater. The mechanics I'm referring to are in the 50+ page document that I read, that I'm sure most people (miners) are not even aware of: https://hackmd.io/@timbeiko/1559-updates/https%3A%2F%2Fhackmd.io%2F%40timbeiko%2F1559-update-004#Economic-Analysis-%F0%9F%93%91 https://hackmd.io/@timbeiko/1559-updates/https%3A%2F%2Fhackm... As for profitability changes, that's almost impossible to measure right now. There is too many variables. One is that there isn't any wallet support for 1559 yet (MM came out today and is apparently, um, lacking). People are still over paying for transactions. Difficulty + price changes + pool luck + changes in hardware stability also make things nearly impossible to track accurately. I have a margin of error, but it doesn't look too bad right now actually.
  - Tenoke 5y ago
    >LOL! Pretty sure those community calls did not include ALL miners. They included the biggest miners and overall > 50% of the mining power as far as I could tell. >The mechanics I'm referring to are in the 50+ page document that I read, I wish you'd specify what mechanic in particular you think others misunderstood and you didn't, as I included the main ones from their arguments.
    - latchkey 5y ago
      Exactly. 50% isn't enough to reach consensus. I also know pools that voted against it, which kind of regret that now that they understand things better. A big issue is that miners and some of the pools were still raw over progpow. Point #1 is a big one. A huge number of people thought that fees would go down.

chrisco255 5y ago

They brought the miners onto the weekly cat herders (the name for core dev weekly sync) meeting they hold. I watched the stream. They listened to the feedback, some other miners that were for it including Stakefish were present. The arguments weren't strong at all from the miners that were opposed and in the end, they dropped it.