December ECIPs Discussion, Year Review

0:00Istora MandiriOkay, so hello and welcome to Ethereum Classic Community Call number 44. Today is Friday, December 19th, 2025. This community call is an open voice chat discussion about Ethereum Classic. Everyone is welcome, please be excellent to each other. The call will be published on YouTube. And if you're interested, you can join the call, one hour before. In the green room. And this is a pre-call hangout that will not be recorded. You can find us in the Discord voice channels. This week, we have an announcement to make, which is a new community calls website, which you can find at cc.etheriumclassic.org. On this website, you can browse all the past episodes, you can trans… you can subscribe to the calendar or RSS feed to never miss a call. It has a time zone converter, so you can, Ensure that you're arriving at the right time, and you can find AI summaries of all the calls, and there'll be more features to come. So, without further ado, let's dive in. There are 3 topics… oh, I see Diego has his hand up, would you like to chat, or is that just a, a clap? 1:07Diego López LeónYeah, no, it was just a clap for your great work on the website. 1:12Istora MandiriOkay, thanks. Thanks, Diego, yeah. It was made with the help of Claude CodeCLI, so I'd like to thank all the, all the LLM producers out there that helped. So there's… Three topics that we can dive into today, and there's no particular order, but… Basically, they are. We have, basically an approval deadlock on some, mergers happening on the various Ethereum Classic repos that we could dive into and try and sort out while we're on this call. There's some remaining questions about Olympia that were brought up in the last call that I was hoping if, some of the authors might be able to address this call. And then finally, some potential, discussion about editorial guidelines about Ethereumclassic.org and this new Ethereum Classic community call website. So… Is there anyone on the call that would like to jump in on any other topic, or any particular topic that I've brought up? Okay, so in that case, I think we should just jump into the… the first approval deadlock issue, and I'm referring particularly to a comment made by Cody. about trying to sort out this merge for ECIP 1120, which was authored by me and Diego, and submitted for a pull request on the ECIP's repo about 2 weeks ago, and has since been basically in… approval… Purgatory for the last two weeks, trying to… appease one of the, ECIP maintainers. And it seems, Cody, that this is okay with you. Do you have any ideas on what we can do in terms of next steps to get this merged? 3:21Cody BurnsYeah, I think for next steps, updating the editors in the ECIP repos, probably the… Next step, I mean, the… Processes intended to… get as much information out in front of people as possible so they can read and think and debate about it. I mean… filibustering it doesn't really help anyone. So, and we don't… I think MeowBits is still the other maintainer, or editor, or whatever the role is in the ECIP, so we need to refresh those anyway. 3:58Istora MandiriOkay, I saw that you, recently made a pull request to update that list of editors, and I approved and merged that one, so this would be rotate the inactive editors, this is PR549, and I think you switched me out bits and added Diego to the list of Maintainers? Is that something that's been reflected in the, the teams now as well? Or is that just on the ECIP? 4:29Cody BurnsGood question, let me check. 4:41Diego López LeónWould you mind sharing the link to this PR in the chat? 4:48Istora MandiriYep, no problem. I'll send it through in just a sec. 4:50Wedergarten || SSCI got it. I'm sending it. 4:54Diego López LeónThank you. No, no, I meant the other one, the one adding me as an editor, or the other one that you were just mentioning. 5:22Istora MandiriHmm, let's see… Right. I will share that in just a second. It's number 594. Sorry, 549. And I'll paste this in the chat. Okay. Do you see that? 5:52Diego López LeónYeah, thank you. 6:01Istora MandiriYeah, so just for the… record, I want to make sure I'm not going insane, and that my interpretation of the ECIP categorization is indeed Like, correct in that, like, standard track slash core. is appropriate for ECIP 1120. 6:24Cody BurnsAs far as I can tell. 6:28Istora MandiriRight. 6:34Diego López LeónYeah, I agree with that. 6:38Istora MandiriCool. I think if we have, like, majority… support to merge this, then I… And there's no… I mean, Chris has been invited to the call, and I was hoping he'd join to, To get his… interpretation, analyzed, I guess, but he's not here at the moment, but I think, like, with 3 out of 4 of the maintainers supporting this, we can go ahead and merge it at this stage, even if it means dismissing the The stale review. If anyone is against that, then please let me know. Okay, so I think that… 1120 can go ahead and be merged. There's also, a kind of side issue with the ECRP WIP status, work in progress status, which in ETFP 1000 is listed as, like, optional, so… Any ECIP that is going to be updated in the future could be, like, early stage, listed as work in progress. And it seems that, Chris was suggesting to use this status at some point for 11.20, and I was okay with that. But it seems like the… there's an ECIP validator, RubyGen, which is an external dependency on the ECIP's repo. It's maintained by MeowBits, and it doesn't support WIP, so any status of WIP was just failing the build. And for that reason, it was causing a bit of confusion. I have another open pull request that… Changes the logic so that it's no longer depending on an external gem, and it's… running that validation locally within the ECIP repo. So that's another… Pull request, or request. Review from… Maintainers. So this would allow us to manage all the validation locally without relying on that outdated, Ruby gem in the external library. 8:59Cody BurnsMakes sense. What's the difference in work in progress and draft? Is draft, more complete than work in progress? 9:07Istora MandiriYeah, so the only mention of WIP on eSIP1000 is that draft ECIPs may be in very early stage, may be entered as WIP, which means they're a work in progress. That's the only thing that it mentioned. So… It's probably the case that the WIP as a status wasn't part of the original assumption, and then this WIP clause got added in at some point, but didn't update the validator. And the workaround so far has just been to prefix everything with WIP in the title. So… 9:47Cody BurnsHuh. 9:49Istora Mandirione option, but I think it would be nicer to just actually have a WIP status. 9:54Cody BurnsYeah, having it internal and being able to control it's definitely the preferred, I think. 10:00Istora MandiriYep. So that pull request I made, I'm not a Ruby guy. And it's co-authored by AI agents. It seems to work, and I've tested it, but if someone is familiar with Ruby and can sanity check this, it seems to be fine, but it would be nice if someone could do that before we merge it. 10:31Cody BurnsCool. Diego has also… you should have an invite now for UCIP Editor's team. 10:40Diego López LeónAwesome, thank you. 10:48Istora MandiriCool. So… Yeah, and if, Diego, you could approve 1120, that would also… For the record, help. I will reference this conversation. Before merging. But yeah, that would be… that'll be useful to have on the, the repo itself. 11:10Diego López LeónYeah, are you going to change the status to work in progress, or we will keep it engraft? 11:20Istora MandiriThis links nicely with the next item on the agenda, which is… I also made a pull request to fix the Olympia ECIP's categorization, and this brings those Olympia ECIPs in line with the same interpretation. i.e. standard to track core, because they do implement, hard forks, so I was assuming that, like, these are not really meta ECIPs, because they're gonna be changing the protocol, so… And they currently are using the WIP, prefix. as a workaround. adding to Olympia. So, I understand it's a bit cheeky, but I wanted to kind of align both 1120 and Olympia in what I believe to be similar statuses, given the fact that In 1120, the, like, the parameters that are unfinaled are also unfinaled in Olympia in 1111. So, I feel like they're kind of… they both require the same Levels of additional research, and if one is WIP, then so should the other, probably. So, I'm fine with… either WIP or draft, to be honest, I think… because these parameters, like, there's no significant change to either of these ECIPs, other than finalizing those parameters based on client testing. So I don't… necessarily think they need to be WIP, because they're not going to change too much. So, I'm happy having both of these as draft. But I do think the standards track should be updated. Sorry, the types should be updated to standard track on Olympia. 13:14Cody BurnsAt least for 1111 and 1112. 13:18Istora MandiriSo, I'm happy to update my branch to remove the WIP, and merge both as draft. But I'm open. 13:27Cody BurnsYo. I don't have any objection to it. 13:33Istora MandiriCool. In that case, I'll remove the WIP prefix from the Fix Olympia ECIPs categorization PR, and I think then that the current 11… 20 can be merged as is. As a draft. 13:57Cody BurnsWhat about 1121? I submitted a PR for that one, too. This is, kind of the omnibus of everything that we've missed. As well, along the line. Because… 14:07Istora MandiriYeah, this was also in the agenda, and… I… So… whatever the next branch is… whatever the next, hard fork is called, I'm totally fine with… with whatever we come up with. My only concern is that Olympia has already kind of been promoted as this Treasury, so… I just wanted to be extra careful about how it's interpreted by people outside the ECIP process. And if… we're adamant that Olympia is the next name. I'm totally fine with going with it. I just… I think it's really important that, like, the distinction is made between Olympia, the Treasury, and Olympia, the hard fork, that might have other ECIPs as part of it. And that was the only thing that I think we need to, like, discuss and properly signal to people outside the ECIP process. Because I know a lot of people in the Discord are like, no Olympia, because they think Olympia is a Treasury. So… That was my only… concerned with listing everything under Olympia. 15:17Cody BurnsYeah, it's a… 15:18Diego López Leónkit. 15:19Cody BurnsFair. Go ahead, Diego. 15:21Diego López LeónYeah, no, I'm sorry. Yeah, about that, I also think I agree with, story here, because if you search for Olympia or Ethereum Classic. In any search engine, it will come up with this treasury thing, because there has been already, like. pretty, like, like, articles published on coins… coins something, I don't remember the name, but, I think in CoinMarketCap, under the Ethereum Classic user, so they are praising Olympia to be the next hard fork, with the treasury and all that. So, yeah, I think it will be better I don't know if we have to decide for a name right now, but if… yeah, if the next, hard fork is… I mean, it's not going to include the Treasury, I will keep it, like, with a different name. 16:12Cody BurnsOkay. I like the Olympia name because it's out there and it's been there for a year. Whether or not it has a treasury in it, or how the 1559 gets implemented. We can still decide, but just as a name, it doesn't matter to me at all, because it doesn't impact anything, but this does… it's already out there. as the next hard fork, so it's easier to say Olympia is the hard fork, and do… push articles out saying, or clarifying that a treasury is an option in it, kind of like how the merge did for a while. It's a long-term goal, but it's… and it can be part of the Olympia, or the next fort, but… the… important thing is that we can agree what's in the next fork, everyone can know that it exists and it's coming, and we can start coordinating. And locking on a name and not going around in circles on it is more important to me than, other stuff, I guess. So… okay. I just want to call it Olympia, and then we can start bickering about what's inside of it. 17:22Istora MandiriYeah, to be honest, I mean, if… if that's… a way forward, then I'm open to it. It would have been nice if this conversation was had in the first place, before these, like, promotions were made about Olympia containing a treasury, and it does tie nicely into the next topic, which is about the publication guidelines on Ethereumclassic.org, and having this disclaimer about… the contents of Olympia, and or, like, the path forward with 1559, and… The issue is that the way that… Olympia has been framed so far is that this is a hardfall that's gonna happen, and it's gonna have a treasury. So, undoing that messaging. probably there's not that many people following anyway, so it's not gonna be, like, a game… game over scenario, to be honest. So, if this is ground that needs to be seeded, then, okay, I'm willing to do that. I think from my side, at least, we can come up with some kind of, path forward on that. as long as we, like, properly make it clear that it's not necessarily Treasury, things are still being debated. 18:39Cody BurnsOkay. 18:40Istora MandiriYeah, Diego just… Diego just posted a link in the chat. I'll also add this to the show notes. And yeah, this is… This is, like, kind of… the, the kind of… difficulty in using the word Olympia. Again, I'm… Like, to me, this is… this is not like… a major… blocker right now. Like, it's not really something we should be arguing about at this stage. Ideally, we should be arguing about what we're actually going to be implementing, as opposed to the name. 19:19Cody BurnsExactly. Yeah, so maybe this Olympia Developer Series expands out to 1120 as well, because that's the other I mean, alternative that… is out there. Either way, I think we've decided we want to do 1559, we want to do smoothing, it's coming at some point. Whether or not there's a treasury portion or not is, currently debated, but… 19:42Istora MandiriYep. 19:42Cody BurnsMore broadly, we don't… It's just for the… But yeah, go ahead. 19:46Istora MandiriSorry. I was just gonna mention that smoothing, can be implemented in a number of ways, right? And 1115 is currently, like, a smart contract application layer-based smoothing system. And it's a very different implementation to 1120. So… They kind of are still opposing, even though there is a smoothing mechanism proposed. It's… they're very different implementations. 20:23Cody BurnsHow are they different, Megan? Sorry. 20:26Istora MandiriSo, in 1115, the L-smoothing mechanism is basically it's been defined, as far as I understand, as, like, kind of… As part of the Olympia governance voting system. each… I mean, it's kind of underdefined, to be honest, because you'd assume there needs to be some kind of, transaction initiated every block to… reimburse miners? But right now, it's implemented as a smart contract-based, future-looking like, refund mechanism in the application layer, since all of the, all of the base fee is added to that Treasury smart contract. Whereas in 1120, it's based on a protocol layer with no small contracts. It's returned using a stateless backwards-looking mechanism. 21:23Cody BurnsGot it. 21:23Istora MandiriAnd it complet… yeah, so it completely separates the… the application layer from the protocol. 21:30Cody BurnsYeah, the maintenance environment, it's part of the block of, paying the previous miners. Correct. 21:38Istora MandiriYes. 21:41Cody BurnsOkay. 21:42Istora MandiriI guess… 21:43Cody BurnsIn that definition, then, I guess for clarity. In my head, 15, or 115, is the middle ground between the two. 1111 was all of the base fee goes to the Treasury. 1120 is their smoothing, to all the miners get the base fee smoothed out, and 1115 is the middle of their smoothing with a portion that goes to the Treasury. 22:14Istora MandiriOkay. And currently, do you advocate… one implementation over the other. Like, currently 1115 says it should be implemented in a contract. But it could be possible to implement as, like, a protocol layer, and then 5% goes to a Treasury contract, for example. 22:33Cody BurnsYeah, protocol level would be the preference, with the optional. Treasurer. 22:40Istora MandiriOkay. I think in that case, then, 111.5 should be updated. 22:45Cody BurnsYeah. 22:49Istora MandiriOkay, but in any case, both 1115, 1111. and 1120. require additional… Like, client testing, and… modeling, I think, to finalize those specific parameters, like the block elasticity, and the shape of the curve. 23:12Cody BurnsYeah. And those are probably the… those three are gonna require the work for the next hard fork. The other ones, I think, are already implemented in BASU and CoreGeth, so it's… Just picking a block number, really. And then we magically get upgrades. 23:31Istora MandiriYep. 23:35Cody BurnsSoap. 23:36Istora MandiriYeah, so the only other thing that I wanted to, highlight about the Olympia umbrella is that I think this would also need sign-off from Chris Mercer, who's the author of the original Olympia series, of whether 11120 is powerful. And… given that he's the main author, like, he should probably have some say in that, so… I've left that as an open question for him. 24:02Cody BurnsSure. Can we talk timelines? I guess? As well, on this call. 24:14Istora MandiriYeah, we can. I think… I think the next, like, important thing to try and figure out is… like… How do we reach consensus? Like, how do we… get input from other stakeholders? Because right now, there's basically two editors that support either side, there's kind of a deadlock, right? And it's 50-50. More or less. So, how do we get other people's voices in, and how do we either allow them to signal their support for one side or the other, or… Like, can we build some kind of… way for miners to show what they're likely to mine in the future. Is this… Is this already built in to the protocol? Is there some mechanism that we can utilize, that's been used in other chains for, like, helping us figure out Where people are thinking, and are there any other ways we can think of to… Help us make this decision, given that there is no, like, clear… consensus right now between the ECIP maintainers of which path to go forward with. Because, like, when we're talking timelines, then really, I guess the implementation is not that… much of a burden. It's really just, like, the coordinating and reaching consensus part that's gonna take some time, and if there's any way we can shorten that time frame, then we can… we can accelerate the fork. Deadline. 25:51Cody BurnsYeah. Well, I mean… the only, I guess, controversial part is around 1559 and its handling. The rest of it, I don't think there's any… Objections? so… Figuring out how to settle that part quickly would be really helpful, because the other stuff, we could… In theory, June's possible for getting it live on mainnet. March could be… we could go live on testnet, so it's just block numbers, it's… easy, but getting the consensus around 15 and 59 is still the, more challenging part, as you said. We do kind of have minor signaling that can change the, what they're using for nonces, or, how they're signing… things, I mean… There's also, The possibility of doing something like a prediction market of where We create two coins, a pro coin and against coin for the Treasury, and people lock their tokens into it, and then we ride through the fork. And then unlock on the other side. If you went with, you didn't want the treasury, then that's the chain you're on. you wanted the Treasury, then that's the chain you're on, and both sides end up on the other one. With your money. And I guess, theoretically, you sell the losing token. Or the winners get the losing tokens, or how are prediction markets work. I see. 27:28Istora MandiriWould that be saying that, like. The… assuming there's, like, a chain split. 27:33Cody BurnsOr is that just… Well, it's a skin in the game. It costs people on Discord nothing to shit-talk all day and say how terrible everything is and never develop anything. That's… Easy. Actually putting… locking coins up and saying, I believe in this so much that I'm willing to burn all of my ETC, is a different, different, question, because you have to ride out the uncertainty in pricing and, all kinds of things. It changed the dynamic of it a bit. 28:08Istora MandiriIt does, but at the same time, you don't want to have too much of a burden for people, so that, like, you're encouraging everyone with minimal effort to engage with it somehow. Like… Another idea would be… I'm not sure if this would work, but, like… Creating some kind of relationship with the gas limit that miners can vote on. with an outcome to signal whether they prefer one or the other. Like, let's say you have 8 million 100. Is a signal for yes, and then… 7 million… 99999. 100 would be a signal for no. And then you can just kind of, like… Vote with the gas pro… gas limit target? Is that something that might work? And I'm just thinking out loud here. 29:07Cody BurnsYeah, I think the mining pools control that, though, because, they're the ones that actually submit the blocks with the Coinbase and… So I think that they control that. I don't know if individual miners can set their own gas limits as they're doing the… 29:22Istora MandiriI see. Yeah, trying to… I guess… I guess maybe a layered approach would be good, But again, we don't want to create too much work for ourselves. Yeah. the participants. 29:37Cody BurnsAnd we don't want to create an overly complex process that's going to drag this out for longer than it needs to be, because as I said, most of this is We put a block number in. everything works. So, dragging it out until the end of next year is… would be crazy. 29:58Diego López LeónHelp and lost, Cody. 30:00Cody BurnsDo we have any idea of the work that would be required to do the smoothing for 1559 in the CoreGath client? 30:06Diego López LeónMaybe. 30:06Cody BurnsMore invasive. 30:07Diego López Leónrates. 30:13Istora MandiriSorry, Diego, could you repeat that? 30:17Diego López LeónSorry, I missed Cody for a while, so I wasn't sure if it was me or it was him. 30:25Istora MandiriI think maybe you cut out for a moment, because I could hear him fully. 30:28Diego López LeónHuh. Okay. 30:30Istora Mandiriit could… Diego, do you know how much effort, development-wise, implementing 1120 would be. I believe that was Cody's question. 30:47Diego López LeónHmm. I think that the main problem is not implementing it, but, the testing part. That will be terrible, because we have to simulate… I mean, we will have probably to emulate what, Ethereum made, for 50 and 59, and that's something that we have to research, but, From what I remember, they kind of replayed most of the… the mainnet, like, applying This mechanism, and they measure different scenarios, and how that would work, and how the car will change, and all that, so… Our thing will be to… yeah, to dig in, how was that tested? Probably we could reach out to some of the people involved back at the time. I think they are still there, and asking that. Yeah, then replicating it, Yeah, I think that will be the most crucial part, or time-consuming. And the most difficult one for… for one head on how long it will take. For the implementation itself, it's quite simple. It's pretty much the pseudocode that is in the ECIP, and I already implemented it on BESU, which is, which was quite simple. But I think that the most difficult part is… is that R1. Yeah, and this will be a way different, hard forked than previous ones. So, I honestly think that thinking about March for having… A testnet? It's a bit, ambitious. 32:27Cody BurnsWhy is this different from previous hard forks? 32:30Diego López LeónBecause this will change the monetary policy, which is something that might affect in… in ways that are not so well. 32:40Istora MandiriIt's so easy to, to… 32:42Diego López Leónto define up front. That's… that's the thing I… I must worry about. 32:48Istora MandiriYeah, there's some bugs. 32:49Cody BurnsPolicy? 32:51Diego López LeónSorry. 32:52Cody BurnsHow does this affect the monetary policy? 32:56Diego López LeónWell, it's not the monetary policy itself, sorry, it's the fee mechanism. So it's a completely different thing right now. It will be a different thing. 33:07Cody BurnsIt will be a different thing. I don't think that that impacts Anything, as far as timelines go. We need to talk. All the talk about it, but… I'd love to understand the difficulty in implementing these things. 33:23Diego López LeónOkay, well, yeah, maybe it's, Yeah, maybe it's simpler than how it was in Ethereum, because, well, they were burning things, and we will not, so that might simplify a few things, but either way, I think it will be interesting to run at least some of the tests they run. 33:45Cody BurnsYeah, no, I'm… I'm concerned that you're concerned, is, I guess, what I would say. I think we should test, that's… as I've been building out the Fukui client, the Gorgoroth testnet has been for that, of making sure that all the clients talk, everything works together, and that I'm able to make sure all the parameters are tuned in right. So I definitely think that that's valuable. But… I don't think that this takes longer than. 34:15Diego López LeónYeah, no. some… something different from… from previous hard fork is that basically other hardware have been already tested on Ethereum, and this we will not, at least not in the implementation that we are going through. And either way, it took us, like, a few months, even we were… when we were, like, 3 people working on this. But, yeah, I think that's one of the main differences right now in this particular hard fork. Besides the implementation itself, it will be something very unique. 34:51Cody BurnsOkay. That makes sense? 34:57Diego López LeónBut, I still… I think we can still think, for… for a timeline, maybe not in this call, but it's good to have this in mind, so we don't lose focus on what we are doing. And also, if we are lucky, we may have some extra hands. Not long… not so long in the future, but yeah, that could help us a lot on moving this forward. 35:27Istora MandiriYeah, part of the… goal of this ECIP1120.dev Research project was to try and outline all the potential Like, things that need testing. And there are, like, additional… Concerns that don't exist on. other forks that have been implemented before on Ethereum Classic… sorry, on Ethereum Mainnet, like, this whole… Figuring out how… The clients will… Handle reorgs, and that kind of thing, using different… Rules for… for that, based on this, this new distribution mechanism, and the different numbers of Like, how many blocks is a suitable amount to… Ensure the economic properties as outlined in that, research paper that we've talked about before. And, like, finding the sweet spot between, like. do we have 1,000 blocks of curving? Do we have 50 blocks of curving? And what is the… like, these are research topics that need to… be thought about and also tested in practice. So it's not just a case of flipping a switch of something else that's happened in the past, because we need to do, like, Novel research, original research on this. 36:54Cody BurnsNope. 36:55Diego López LeónYeah. I guess what I'm saying is, can we have a go-no-go by… 36:59Cody BurnsMarch 1st. Of whether we have confidence that we know the answer and we have the research, and this can be included in the hard fork. 37:06Diego López LeónPerfect. 37:06Cody BurnsIt can be deferred to later, and we can activate all the rest of them. come June 1st. 37:15Diego López LeónYeah, but… 37:16Istora MandiriI'm happy to help. I'll contribute to this research, and… like, the whole point of me jumping in as an author is because I see the need to, like, help Ethereum Classic at this point, and I'm willing to put the effort in and help contribute to these research efforts, it's just that I need to be sure that there's a… like… there's a reasonable chance it will actually be useful, like, because a lot of this research is only applicable to 1120, like the… if-if-el smoothing, which wasn't a thing in Olympia until a month ago. If that's something we want, and we want to research that, then, like, let's decide whether it's actually going to be useful to spend that time researching. 38:00Diego López LeónYeah, I think my… my main point right now for research is if the 128 blocks behind it's enough, because that's the number of… that currently every client needs to have in memory, or accessible, because the block hash is defined to To re… to reply to 128 blogs from the past. If we go farther than that, it will imply, like. a change of the requirements on the node, and that's something that we… we might want to avoid. So, if 128 is enough, that would be great. 38:46Istora MandiriAwesome. And my assumption is that, like, the more, the better, in terms of the smoothing effect is more pronounced and less gameable, the longer… the larger the number of blocks. And if 128 is, like, A good technical milestone that doesn't require too many additional assumptions to be messed with, then it seems like a good starting point, at least. And if the clients can perform with 128, then that's a… phew, like a good proposal. 39:19Cody BurnsYep. I mean, it's… it's similar to the miner's, pay for last-end shares, Smoothing, so you might look at that and see how they've… Where they've ended up. But… I mean, yeah, conceptually… 39:34Istora MandiriRepeat. Deeply. 39:36Cody BurnsMining pools, whenever they're paying out for the shares that come from their different miners, they, to avoid the pool hopping, they do a smoothing algorithm of either pay-per-last-in shares, where, You… whenever the mining pool finds a block, it pays out proportionally to how much you've contributed to the pool, even if you didn't particularly find a hash, so that smooths it out that way. The other way is pay per share, so it's… More directly proportional and less smoothing. But it's… it's a problem that mining pools have… Dealt with for a long time, of how to keep hash rate stable. 40:18Istora MandiriBoom. while we're on the topic, is there any advantage to having a decay curve instead of just linearly? Like, is there some incentivization of empty blocks by… by not including more transactions in some way, that… Is related to the amount of reward they… that miners are given. Or it's just a linear… Return. Gonna provide the same economic… like, incentives. 41:01Cody BurnsYeah, something to look at. I mean, linear is easier for the math side of it, probably, of a cleaner code. The exponential… doing a decay could be interesting as well, of, if you're a. 41:17Istora MandiriRight, I'm just not sure what the implication was. 41:23Cody BurnsYeah, something to think about. I mean, because we have 18 decimal points to play with, so it's a pretty big space to fractionalize returns on things. I guess the other thing to look at would be where the funds get returned to. Right now, the way that the… blocks are put together, the Coinbase recipient is part of the block header. If this is going to be more of a smoothing, place being able to define where that Coinbase goes would be… better, kind of more like, I guess, the way that staking has deposit addresses, withdrawal addresses, having, Similar thing for the smoothing, address where you can have all your funds go to, and… Be managed better. Would be interesting. 42:12Diego López LeónYeah, something else that I'm just thinking is that maybe it will… it might be a problem for explorers. Because, I don't know how they calculate their reward for each block, but that will certainly change. 42:29Istora MandiriYep. 42:32Cody BurnsFrom what I remember, I don't think that there's an op code for, Block reward. 42:38Diego López LeónNo, no, there's no. 42:42Cody BurnsSo. 42:43Diego López LeónNo, there's no… so they might need to replicate the same algorithm for calculating the reward. But, yeah, it might be interesting also to have, eventually their perspective. on this, on how they can adjust, probably with the Block Scott people. At least. 43:06Istora MandiriYeah. Additionally, maybe mining software. Would have to be adjusted. 43:14Diego López LeónNo, I don't think so. No, no. Okay. No, because, the template will be still the same, so no. 43:26Istora MandiriWould that be true of the pool operators? 43:32Diego López LeónNo, it will… it should be transparent to them. 43:36Istora MandiriOkay. 43:38Cody BurnsYeah, the pool software just calls the getth mode and, gets it blocked. 43:43Diego López Leónnetwork. Yeah. Yeah. 43:47Istora MandiriCool. So the only, like, downstream… Software clients that may be affected are blockchain explorers. 44:00Diego López LeónYep. 44:01Cody BurnsPotentially, yeah. We need to look at it, I guess. 44:07Istora MandiriHow would this, sorry to… how would the… The existence of both type 1 and type 2 transactions… Like, mesh with… The additional base fee. They just go directly to the base and gets moved out, right? 44:31Diego López LeónYeah, the structure of the transaction is exactly the same as it's in Ethereum. So, yep, it's taken the base fee, and that's the amount that it's summed up and distributed among the N-pust miners. 44:48Istora MandiriCool. So the blockchain explorers would basically just have to implement exactly the same block. We're gonna switch to this new algorithm to determine the emission. 45:00Diego López LeónWell, the mission would be the same. The only difference would be how much… yeah, sorry. 45:07Istora MandiriWrong terminology. I meant, block reward. 45:12Diego López LeónYes, yes, then yes, it will change, yeah. 45:20Cody BurnsIt would change the block reward? 45:24Diego López LeónYes, I mean, there is still the block reward, which will be, the existing one, minus the sum of the base fees. But then you will get added. a portion of the past and blocks. 45:43Cody BurnsThat's how your current reward is calculated. Yeah, that's true. I thought you meant the overall, block reward versus transaction fees. The block reward itself will still decline, like. 17, or 1017. 45:58Diego López LeónYeah, yeah. No, no, yeah, it's, it's still there. 46:02Cody BurnsOkay. What about OMERS, also? I guess that's gonna be the challenging part. we disincentivized them with 1017, but I think… It's still gonna be… Pretty complicated. 46:20Diego López LeónYeah, I thought about that, but Yeah, I think, it's… well, it's something that we might need to… to at least be a bit more clear on what we think. I gave a talk about Omer's and how this will affect, and my conclusion was that, It doesn't change the incentive for kit mining. competitive blogs. But yeah, we might need to be more clear about that in the… In somewhere, I don't know if you're in the research page or in the ECAP. 46:59Istora MandiriCould you, do, like, a quick summary of what the concern is there? 47:09Diego López LeónYeah, I think… well, basically the concern is that if we… it will change the incentive for mining competitive blocks. That's the main concern. I think, it doesn't change the… The incentive for doing that, but it's worth to take another look. 47:28Istora MandiriSo this, this would be, like, empty blocks. Being a problem. No, no. 47:34Diego López LeónNo, competitive blocks. I mean, if some other miner will pick, I mean, the idea of Omerce is that you are rewarding even competitive blocks, so… So, yep, that's, I think that's… that's the main concern. I don't know, Cody, if I understood you correctly. 47:56Cody BurnsYeah, whenever the, whenever you make blocks, you can make your block heavier by adding the… previous blocks that were almost blocks, the OMERS, and there's some… you get some payment for adding these into it, so figuring out, making sure that the OMERS are added are based on the right parent blocks of the ones that you're paying out. 128 blocks later, and it's not just a randomly made-up Omer, would be, I guess, the concern, of make sure everything maps together. 48:35Istora MandiriCool. Should definitely add this as a research. Avenue. 49:01Diego López LeónSomething interesting, that we can do, maybe, is to… to get a list of the people that were involved into the original 1559. I don't know, maybe send them an email or something, if they may be interested to take a look at what we are working on. Maybe they might have some insight. 49:24Istora MandiriYeah, that's a good idea. I was ho- I was hoping, eventually, maybe, Hasu may be interested in this mechanism since he was… Quite involved in that original discussion on Ethereum's side. 49:40Diego López LeónYeah, I don't know, Cody, if you know some of them, but it will also be helpful. If you could reach out eventually. 49:49Cody BurnsHuh. Don't know if I know anyone off the top of my head, but. 49:55Diego López LeónYeah, we'll get a list of names. 50:04Cody BurnsWhat else do we want to talk about at the end of your extravaganza here? I mean, I guess, are we… Does that sound like a plan? Research and make a decision in March of whether we go with the 1559, or we just implement the other ones without 1559. That way we can at least have, something to drive towards. 50:31Diego López LeónYep. 50:34Istora MandiriSounds good. 50:34Diego López Leónme. 50:37Istora MandiriI'm happy to collaborate in the… organizing research efforts, anything I can do. Just let me know. I'll continue hosting the calls to… Update the community about what's going on. And hopefully can also get my hands dirty on things, if needed. 50:58Cody BurnsCool. Yeah, I think 2026 is gonna be a… a lot funner year than it has been in the past for Ethereum Classic. 51:12Istora MandiriOkay, there are some other minor things that are not really worth spending too much time on, editorial guidelines about ETC… the community cause thing. I think the AI summaries are just interesting, not trying to inject any bias, so I'm just gonna continue copy-pasting them in terms of whatever Zoom tells me to. Happy to accept pull requests. I don't know if we need to implement any additional, safeguards for the community calls website. Currently I can just commit to the main branch and update things directly. if anyone… prefers to do it a different way, I'm open to that. I'm also happy to… draft some… guidelines for editorial that I can stick to myself. If that's something that people actually need. 52:10Cody BurnsThe overall content, Sorry to interrupt. Phil, is the Ambassador program still going with the ETC grant style? And… Is this somewhere where they could contribute to articles and things like this? In the future? 52:29PhilNo, actually, they are doing just on Twitter to do some promoting stuff, and they are not writing stuff, like, to our official website. 52:40Cody BurnsOkay. But they are still active and on Twitter? 52:43PhilYeah, if you prefer to, let's say, contribute some papers or articles on our official website, it is also okay. We can organize some… this kind of events. 52:55Cody BurnsOkay, Yeah, I think it'd be maybe interesting, because you had also mentioned a store of maybe doing poeapps or something for, or people coming on here and speaking or doing that, so that might be a way to get the community involved more as well, and I think the guidelines would help with that, too. 53:12Istora MandiriFor sure. It'd be great to get, guests on to talk about specific topics, And I'm not actually too familiar with the Ambassador Program. I guess I was kind of not around when it got announced. Could you maybe tell the listeners a little bit about the Ambassador Program, and who's behind that, what it involves exactly? 53:37PhilSure. So, basically, the ambassador program is funded by the EGD, which is ADC grant style, and, it is for the ambassadors to, let's say, to promote, to post some kind of, promoting tweeters, promoting tweets, and… To, let's say, to attract more involves and, interactions to ETC ecosystem. Yeah, that is what they do for now. 54:14Istora MandiriOkay, so is there some kind of, like, funding Behind us. 54:21PhilYeah. 54:22Istora MandiriOkay. 54:24PhilLike, the, if they attract more, let's say, likes or, attractions, replies, you will get, some more rewards through that. 54:36Istora MandiriAwesome. Yeah, I think now that we have this website, it's a little bit nicer to share the information about these calls, and it's easier to… to follow the series, and hopefully more people will join as we continue to do this regularly. So, hopefully, we can Grow and, get some… some traction. And I'll post the link about the Ambassador Program in the show notes as well, if anyone's interested. And now that we have this website, it does, act as a starting point for some other potential features, like proof of participation, NFTs, and that kind of stuff, and, More, like, figuring out how to organize future calls, like… Whether we do this on a fixed day, or whether we have, like, special episodes where we coordinate with each other to try and make sure that we can get everyone involved. I was really hoping that Chris would be able to join this call, and maybe he can join one in the future. And hopefully we can get out of this phase of deadlock, and move forward, and just start building stuff. 56:04Cody BurnsYeah, no, sounds like good. Like I said, 2026 is gonna be great, as part of a broader outreach also, I guess we haven't talked about it this publicly, but the last article I posted on the Ethereum Plastic website was about the custody platforms. And, just overall custody platforms are what institutions and banks use for managing their keys and keys for their customers for crypto coins. And, so these platforms are, What institutions and banks are looking at whenever they start their journey into the blockchain space, and 2026 is looking like a… That's where most of the banks in at least the US and around the world are really going to start engaging with blockchains. And so getting… making sure Ethereum Classic is listed on, the leading platforms has always been kind of the goal of Ethereum Classic Co-op, so we've been, having meetings with the platforms that don't currently, have Ethereum Classic listed. And so, hopefully, in the coming year, you'll see more announcements about, these platforms that are supporting us, and… That way, Ethereum Classic is, one of the… First coins in these institutions as they come online, or they have access to them, at least. And this is also, I guess my other big priority for next year is going to be around, cross-chain interoperability. So, looking at the same thing for, Layer Zero and, Chainlink and other, Platforms are out there that are doing interoperability that are, would help Ethereum Classic bridge to the rest of the world a lot easier, so we could be less of our own island. And a lot of these, follow the singleton pattern of you can deploy on any chain. Since, we have Create 2, it's… you deploy the contracts, they go to the right places, and then you stand up infrastructure on the back end to support it. Similar to what we have with the Catacomb Wallet, it would be the same for the other ones, so starting to look at how to expand into those as well in the next year. 58:21Istora MandiriAwesome. Yeah, I think there's a lot of exciting things to look forward to next year. both in Ethereum Classic specifically, and also the wider EVM like, do primitives, cryptographic schemes, ZKPassport, there's gonna be a ton of awesome value adds coming to this network, not just within Ethereum Classic, but, like, inherited, as always, from… from other chains as well. So, I'm looking forward to… to what we can do together next year. And I think it's gonna be, For me, at least, one that's way more engaging. The last year, I've been notably less active, but my situation has changed next year, such that I'm going to be able to do a lot more contributing, and as you've seen already, I'm gonna be picking up the mantle, so to speak. Excellent. Yeah. So, we're coming up to an hour. If there's any other topics that anyone in the chat would like to cover, before we wrap up, then please feel free to jump in. Otherwise, we can, say goodbye for this year, and try and organise the next call. 59:41Diego López LeónAwesome. Thank you, thank you guys, and have a great year. 59:45PhilYeah, thank you, guys. 59:46Cody BurnsYeah, thanks everyone. See you next year. 59:49Istora MandiriThanks, everyone, and yeah, this is the last community call of 2025, and we'll see you guys next year in 2026. Hopefully, everyone has an awesome holiday period, and… See you next time. Take care. Bye-bye.

December ECIPs Discussion, Year Review

Preamble

Announcements

Let’s Dive In

Approval Deadlock

Olympia Questions Remaining

Editorial Guidelines for ETC.org

Call References

AI Summary

Key takeaways

Discussed topics

ECIP approval deadlock

ECIP validation improvements

Olympia hard fork naming and contents

EIP-1559 implementation research

Timeline for next hard fork

Community Call website and editorial guidelines

ETC Ambassador Program

Future plans for Ethereum Classic

Action items

Full Transcript