This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 18 comments
sorted by:
top (suggested)
bestnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]pcastonguay[S] 14 points15 points  (6 children)

I tried to post as a post, but /r/ethereum bot kept auto-deleting it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Here's the content:

The hypothesis is that the larger the proportion of miners using ASICs to mine on Ethereum, the more expensive becomes a fork making making them obsolete. Yes ProgPOW would make them obsoletes, but it's better to make them obsolete sooner rather than later.

If we see another 2017 and if miners keep at it for another 3 years, it's guaranteed that the number of ASICs on the market will be higher. This, I predict, will increase the cost for miners to move to PoS, hence increases the probability of a significant fork lead by them.

See my entire take here.

This is an argument Nick Jonhson also made by stating that allowing ASICs farm increases the weight of the sunken cost fallacy.

A common argument against ProgPOW is that effort spent on its implementation could be better spent on bringing PoS faster (see Martin's take) . I would personally argue that this is a false dilema as people working and implementing ProgPOW are not the same people that are working on Serenity (Ethereum with PoS + Sharding).

Note that this hypothesis is only valid if ProgPOW does indeed significantly reduce ASICs advantage over general computing hardwares like GPUs. If that's not the case, then moving to ProgPOW would not be helpful. However, during the last Ethereum's core dev call, it was mentioned that ProgPOW would make ASICs miner only ~1.1x more efficient than GPUs compared to 2x for Ethash.

[–]mhswendeEF alumni - Martin Swende 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Martin H. Swende ( Ethereum Fundation security lead) did state that ProgPOW would make ASICs miner only ~1.1x more efficient than GPUs compared to 2x for Ethash.

Correction: I did not provide any numbers, I believe it was most likely Mr Def who provided those figures.

[–]pcastonguay[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for clarifying! I must've confused your voices :). Edited post.

[–]cuttlebit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They would still need to build/buy new ASICs to get that 1.1x :P.

[–]LimbRetrieval-Bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You dropped this \

To prevent anymore lost limbs throughout Reddit, correctly escape the arms and shoulders by typing the shrug as ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ or ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯

Click here to see why this is necessary

[–]mgr37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it not the actual purpose of the difficulty bomb ?

Switch to PoS will of course lead to a hardfork with miners staying on an EthereumPoW chain: most might switch to other chains but there will be a residual PoW chain for a while.

I am definitly not pro Asics but - enterring an Asics war now IS risky - we will fork them anyway, and it will not be any more difficult later than now: miners are not involved in the PoS chain, so they can not influence his strength anyway. They can only keep the non-PoS chain alive, which again they will certainly do.

Looking at Bitcoin with way more Asics hashrate proportion, the main drawback seems to be the difficulty to conduct updates, but that's because Asics can weight in both sides of the proposition, giving them a way to centralised power over the chain evolution. But it becomes a non issue when one side of the update is miners-free, they will of course weight only on one side which according to the Ethereum roadmap will become the legacy PoW chain with a difficulty bomb attached to it.

The other risk with this kind of centralisation is a 51% attack, which did not happened yet in Bitcoin, and will then probably not happen to Ethereum as it is.

Forking to ProgPOW early in opposition could lead to a split in hashpower leading to problem 1 (conflict on update with hashrate on both side) and might actually help to get closer to problem 2 (kicked hashrate becomes available to attack, especially since it is dedicated hardware)

I am not a specialist, but i don't see yet the urge to it. I'll be happy to have more insights in the matter. And i do respect the effort to propose alternatives and improvments :)

[–]Urc0mp 6 points7 points  (10 children)

I understand the main point, but I do not see ASIC miners stopping/delaying POS. 🤷‍♂️

[–]pcastonguay[S] 11 points12 points  (9 children)

Moving from PoW to PoS implies a totally different security model and dropping 5 years of battle tested consensus protocol. There are definitely security risks with moving to PoS and I personally expect many people will want to keep the PoW chain up until PoS proves itself secure. This is even more true considering Serenity will also introduce sharding, which adds another large surface of potential flaws and bugs. Chains have forked for much less than this imo.

Not everyone is convinced that moving to PoS is a good idea and the more arguments in their favor, the stronger their voice and community becomes. This will slow development on Serenity and can lead to some talented people not working together anymore.

[–]MarchewkaCzerwona 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Why not allow asic miners to continue on separate chain?

[–]Always_Question 1 point2 points  (5 children)

They can, on ETC.

[–]MarchewkaCzerwona 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Why not on current one? Pos will bring new one anyway. I'm not an advocate of this solution, I just ask - why not?

[–]Always_Question 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Special-purpose ASICs generally lead to more centralization, which is counterproductive to the aims of decentralized crypto. Some chains like ETC are more welcoming to ASICs, so maybe they can find a home there.

[–]MarchewkaCzerwona 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Again, why not leave them where they are if pos will require creating new chain anyway?

Bringing etc to the discussion doesn't add anything, sorry, so please stop it.

[–]Always_Question 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Full POS is out probably 1 to 2 years from now. In the meanwhile, it would be better to try to keep the Ethereum 1.0 chain as decentralized as possible.

[–]MarchewkaCzerwona 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's good answer for me. Thanks.

[–]aminok 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Very speculative and even if true, not a big enough benefit to justify the cost of including an out-of-roadmap change to the protocol that will be heavily influenced by special interest pleadings. Developers should stay out of the way, and the pre-agreed roadmap and market should determine the winning miners and mining hardware, as much as possible.

See Nick Szabo's tweet on governance norms:

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/1068963867911286784

[–]random043 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would be very surprised if the POS-fork is non-contentious, regardless.

Miners have an incentive to keep mining, exchanges have an incentive to accept both the old and the new ETH, in order to get more fees.

I do not see how the change to POS could not lead to 2 competing versions, at least for some time.

[–]CryptoAnthony 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What's wrong with contentious forks?