Spring ETC-Quinox

0:04Istora MandiriHello and welcome. This is Ethereum Classic Community Call number 48. This is an open voice chat discussing Ethereum Classic. Everyone is welcome. The call will be published on YouTube. We kindly ask that discussion stays focused on topics rather than personalities, and that we avoid personal attacks. Let's keep it classy. The next call is scheduled for 3rd of April, next month. Join us in the green room on Zoom, one hour before the next call. For an unrecorded hangout. You can find past episodes, transcripts, subscribe to the calendar, and more at cc.etherumclassic.org. Before I get in, would our participants like to say hello? Just introduce yourselves real quick. Cody, you first? 0:52CodyYep, hi everyone, I'm Cody. I'm, Don't Panic in the forums, and long-time Ethereum Classic supporter and ecosystem coordinator. Yeah, thanks, Astro. 1:08Istora MandiriThanks, Cody. Codaholic? 1:12codeaholicHello, I'm Codeaholic in the forum. And also Gravity Lab and the other forum, since there's two, and you can also call me Daniel, and I'm newer to Ethereum Classic as a protocol, but… I am a builder in this space for fun and enjoyment, and I love learning about this stuff, so… feel free to send me a DM if you are also like that and want to talk, but, thank you for your time, and looking forward to being Fly on the wall and, participating. 1:49Istora MandiriThank you for joining Codeaholic. Justin, wanna say hello? 1:55JustjinHi, my name's Justin. Oh, well, Justin, this ticker, Justin, Yeah, just a ETC supporter for… for a bit, find the chain… The only blockchain that interests me, so… yeah. 2:17Istora MandiriThank you, Justin. And finally, we have Luna Warden. 2:23Lunar WardenHello, my name is Lunar. I, I just got interested in ETC recently. And so, I'm learning about this, I have some… I guess I have some opinions, I, Yeah, it's great to be part of the community. 2:41Istora MandiriThank you, Luna, and we had a really good conversation in the green room just now about philosophy and the future of ETC. We're talking long-term future, 30 years down the line. And how this might benefit People, and provide value beyond just financial. So please join us next time for The Green Room for riveting conversations about ETC off the record. So, we usually start with Pull Request Corner, and I'm gonna go through fairly quickly this week, because, there's a lot to cover, and I just wanted to mention really quickly that we have some New merged PRs in the ECIPs repo? 1116 to 1119 are new. And we will talk about those later in the call with Cody, the author of those PRs. new ECIPs? We have also from Gravity Lab, which I believe Codeaholic is on this call. A number of Elysium. ECIPs that we can also talk about later on. be interesting if you're open to introducing that. And we also have the ECIP1122. I'm not sure if that's the actual number that's going to be used, but this is the quantum resistance for ETC, also authored by Gravity. So maybe, as he's on the call, we can talk about that. In the next section. So Ethereumclassic.org, the main website repo, we fixed the footer for a link in the… the CoreGeth repo link, just that was an accidental fix that we reverted. We added some applications. There's a market infrastructure behind Ethereum Classic blog post that RealCode Burns authored. And we added the disclaimer link, which we'll be hopefully using in future. Articles about debated topics. We closed a couple of… other PRs. Related to dependencies, And there's a new few PRs that are open on that repo. A few for the Olympia debate and the 1559 debate that are still pending. now that we have this disclaimer link. hopefully, we can come to an agreement and start publishing these. We might even need another post to explain why they're delayed because of this. inability to gain consensus over moderation. And we're actually going to have a dedicated section later on in the conversation today about Clarifying… Maintain a responsibility. I've also got, A dependencies update. open. The maintainers can quite uncontroversially approve if they have time to look at that. So 1669 is just bumping dependencies and making the dev container up to date. So, if you are a maintainer, please check that out and merge that pull request. I also added a maintainer pledge blog post, which we can talk about in a later section. Recap from the last call. ESIP 1121, I implemented into ETC Nexus. And… I wanted to talk about some of the, one of the ECIPs that's… Related gas limit that we can get into later. Okay, so… Main agenda. I first wanted to just announce that the next call will be by Bitmain. So they're hosting on XSpaces and AMA that's been announced for March 24th or 23rd in America. that's… I think it's… 00 UTC. So you can find a link in the agenda notes to that, and I hope you'll join. I'll be one of the speakers. Along with, Antmine representative, I believe, and some others. So that should be an interesting conversation. And hopefully we can… Push forward the discussion about forks. In Ethereum. Classic. So… Not one to be missed. And we'll probably be talking about that the week after on the next call. So… Before I jump into the… meat of the agenda. Is there anyone in the chat that wants to bring up any topics? 7:22Lunar WardenI guess, I don't know if you want to bring this up now, but just, how does everyone feel about EIP1559 in general? Is this… is this a topic that has been discussed enough, or… Should we… should we discuss more? I got the sense in the green room that… it was sort of against it, but I don't know, Cody, how do you feel? 7:45CodyYou mean just having base fees in general, or burning the base fees, or… 7:50Lunar WardenYeah, I mean, yeah, implementing something like EIP159 in Ethereum Classic. I personally don't see why it's necessary. I prefer towards, like, fossification. 8:05CodyIt's necessary because all the… Latest contracts and things like that. have all… evolved towards that, so… It's a constantly evolving technology. You have to be able to do the latest transactions, and That if you don't, adopt this, then we've fallen behind by Years. 8:31Lunar WardenWhat? 8:32CodyNot an interesting technology. 8:34Lunar WardenMy understanding… my understanding is most EVM chains don't… don't have, the IP1559. 8:43CodyThey all… have it at this point, except for Ethereum Classic, that I'm aware of. 8:52Lunar WardenIs that true? I don't… I don't think so. I don't… I don't think BSC, for example, has it. If you're EVM compatible, it doesn't necessarily mean you have a 1559. Maybe L2, or… I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'll have to check, but it's… it's a relatively minor change, in any case. That is true. 9:12codeaholicDid it, increase… oops, sorry, go ahead. 9:17Lunar WardenYeah, I mean, I don't think… I think the Ethereum Foundation is making all sorts of mistakes. And if Ethereum Classic just copies them. then… then pretty soon, you know, Ethereum Classic is just gonna be… is just gonna be… it's just gonna go down the drain, sort of like Ethereum. So, the question is, like, at what point, at what point do we say, no, like, it's, it's close enough to compatible? we'll… we… we can sort of move on from… from the Ethereum. At what point do we say, like, oh, okay, like, sort of, let's try to ossify instead of just, like, copying whatever the Ethereum foundations do? That's sort of, like, my perspective about it all. 10:00codeaholicDoes… does that… does that upgrade, like, increase the capabilities of the Solidity, or, like, the deployables you can do to the chain, or, like, in what way will it facilitate, forward usage of it? Like, just, like, at the wallet level, pretty much? 10:17CodyYeah, it makes the gas prediction more… Stable, so that's one of the… Benefits of it. 10:31Istora MandiriYeah, I think it's, like, largely better UX in terms of people expecting a fixed price for how much they pay per transaction, and I do think that's a genuine benefit to the chain. There's also the contracts that may be referring to this as part of their mechanisms, and in the far future. Certain systems of contracts might be relying on this opcode, or using it to… I don't know. Determine network congestion, and therefore change its behavior. And that kind of contract requires 1559. I don't know if they exist yet, they're probably more theoretical. And then you have the wallets themselves that… in the future, may just, like, not use the original transaction type, so it might be more difficult to implement ETC. 11:27Lunar WardenSo, in, in detail right now. 11:29codeaholicbase fee, but, like, I don't really know about the rest of this stuff. Like, from my point of view, the base fee would be for maintenance. I think there's a viable opportunity to maintain it further, but it's not, like, a rush, is my view. And I also think if it's possible, I think it is technically possible for there to be protocol-grade upgrades. That are, like, forward driving of utility that will… Justify the rerouting of a base fee into them. But I believe that these, if they do exist, and when they do exist, will be, like, strongly provable, so that you don't actually need to take anybody's word for it. Like, you can just see the deployed code. And, and we could talk about this more later, like, when we get to some of the later stuff, because I have, like, an example, like, brief example, but, yeah, I digress. 12:26Lunar WardenI guess… 12:28CodyI guess I'm confused. Are you for 1559, or are you against 1559? 12:32codeaholicI think I'm for the base fee, but the base fee can be delivered separately from anything else. So, like, I don't know about the rest of the details for, like, how the gas estimation part of it works, like, I would have to do a review, but that sounds, like, super interesting. So I don't know enough about that to comment on it, but just, I know that from the implementation point of view, you could technically route the base fee without the other stuff in it, right? if you… if you wanted to make the case for, like, maintenance or, like, what I just described for, utility purposes, but even that, even everything I just said is nothing… nothing anytime soon, from my point of view, is needed. Just… exploration of ECIP 1559. Because, Leonard Warden was making the point, which I think is a very good point. and I agree with it about how, just because Ethereum is doing something, doesn't mean Ethereum Classic needs to do it, because the mining… the mining and the proof of work is different than proof of stake, so… How that gets affected is critical, and… I don't know that it does or how it would, but I'm just… that's my open question about it, so… Yeah, I just think that the base fee component is separate from any of the gas stuff, or, like, if it affects anything beyond just gas estimation. But I'm for the base fee because maintenance is a good opportunity. Or, like, it's worth maintaining Ethereum Classic into the future. Even if to just fund grants? If that's what the community thinks, of course. 14:16Lunar WardenSo, I'm looking up the other EVM chains. BSC, for example, doesn't use EIP1559. You know, if you're… 14:27CodyI'm sorry to interrupt. Y'all are aware that the base fee is gas, it's the same thing, right? Whenever the contracts and transactions, it's split into the base fee, and… The priority fee? 1559, and right now it's just off the… Gas? 14:51Lunar WardenYep. Yep. 15:00CodyI mean, they're… they're inseparable, I guess, is my point. 15:17Istora MandiriYeah, but basically. 15:18codeaholicIs that the only benefit of it? 15:20Istora MandiriIf 1559 is implemented, The gas fee needs to go somewhere. The base fee, that is. 15:29CodyYeah, so the… I guess the benefit of it is the feed market efficiency and the… The tool compatibility is the big things that we want. every major wallet, every DeFi front-end. All of them were built around 1559 now. 15:45Lunar WardenWell, they're not, they're not. They, there's plenty, there's plenty of chains that don't use 1559. 15:53codeaholicBut what does it mean from a user point of view to use 1559 in that way? Because, like, isn't it still an ERC20 token, or, like, whatever kind of token it is under the hood? So that, like, it's just a token, right? So, like, why would this change that aspect, or, like, make a difference to wallets? 16:10Lunar WardenIt's the way how the gas is priced, it's the way how the gas is priced in the protocol. It… it does, like… It's a double. 16:18Codyquestion, though, I guess, is my… is my thing. It's not… This isn't a purity test of whether or not we can adopt technology or not. It's a question of whether we want tool compatibility and, like, stable, predictable fees. So the gains outweigh, like, any governance complexity that comes with it. 16:38Lunar WardenWell, it's not, you know, there's… it's perfectly compatible, like, there's, you know, there's EVM chains that don't use EIP1559. there's tons of DeFi UIs, whatever. I mean, it's not even used by most chains. Ethereum uses it, L2s use it, but I think if you're just counting, maybe by market cap, it's used by… because Ethereum's market cap is so large. But, but again, I don't see… I don't see the need why… This is such, like, a relatively minor feature. But it does change some of the economic incentives for minors, and there is this question of, you know, if we're just going to copy whatever Ethereum Foundation does, I think that's eventually going to lead us, you know. It's going to… it's not a good idea, because I think the Ethereum Foundation has already started to make some mistakes. That's actually why I joined this community, because I saw… I saw the way Ethereum was going, and I'm like, I can't be part of this anymore. 17:39CodyYeah, the legacy feed markets, they work when the network is low traffic and there's not a lot going on. That's how ETC is now. But whenever there's any surges in transaction volume, that's whenever the big differences come in, and fees are radically Unpredictable, and transactions can't go through, and things fail. 18:07Lunar WardenIt, it does change. 18:08CodyLike, if you look at… you can look at the Ethereum, like, pre-1559, and… Once the first price The auctions came online, and the, 18:19Lunar WardenYou thought it was deep. 18:20CodyBye. 18:20Lunar WardenI know, I was writing, I was writing magbots for these things during, before, before 1.559, I started. 18:29CodyYeah. So, I mean, it just exposes the flaw in it, so that's what… that's what we're trying to fix. 18:34Lunar WardenI don't think it's necessarily a flaw, it's one type of auction. If… you know, there's other chains, if you want, like, a nice, like, MEV experience, or, like, a nice fast trading experience, you know, you could go to Solana. But what matters, I think, I think more is, like, the, the unchanging principle. And if we start, if we start changing, like, the economic incentives of our… I mean, there's no fees, there's no fees right now. There's no large fees, anyway, right now, for… for minors. But… but in the future, you know, like, the question is, at what point, Like, at what point do we say, you know. there's sort of, like… like, the value from Ethereum Classic does not come from, like, the extra innovation on top of it, right? Like, just… just cause… you know, we can stick an extra, like, 200 transactions into it, or we can stick, or we can make gas, like, 10 times cheaper, or whatever. That doesn't make the network valuable. The network is valuable because, because it has this neutral principle, this unchanging code that everyone can trust to be, that everyone can trust to be, like, unchanging for the next, I don't know, 5, 10, 100 years. And so that's what really creates the value from Ethereum Classic. And if we're just changing that to, like, make, you know, make gas prices cheaper, or to make, or to fit more transactions in a block, then that's, You know, that sort of… that would actually destroy the value of the network. 20:18Istora MandiriYeah, I think that's a very fair perspective, and I do sympathize. Quite a bit with the ossification point. The 1559, though, does not… Affect the number of transactions in that way. It doesn't affect the overall inflation. And it's… it, it can… I was originally in your camp where I was like, yeah, we should not Implement this. But… and I'm still, like, open to that. But I do see that there is some… use. in… providing additional features to Ethereum Classic? like, for example, if there was a… a quantum hardening requirement, like, ossification in that case is bad. Like, we don't want to be ossified in a state where Actually, it's easy to attack the chain. So that kind of thing, at least, requires upgrades. And there's probably this blurry line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. And we're still in the somewhat early days, and I think over time, that line is going to become less blurry. But… I think eventually Ethereum itself will also ossify. And it would be… A shame if we, kind of. Or at least one argument is that it would be a shame if we ossified too early and missed out on some really big wins. For example, if everything goes to L2, and we don't have the underlying cryptography that's needed to enable certain transaction types or certain optimizations that allow this massive… Potential opportunity of value creation. then should we ossify before having that, or after? So, that's an open question, and I see 1559 as Yes, it's not critical. Necessarily. In that it's gonna be game over if we don't do it. But… It can be argued that it does provide genuine value. And why… why should we miss that? At this stage. 22:27codeaholicWhy not develop, Etsy further? Like… like, make it scale further? Because ossification means that it's done growing, but… If there could be, a growth in the network, in the underlying hardware. And also in the networks, just hash rate, just from the software improving. And then also in the underlying economics, because people deploy software to it. I think those are, the trifecta needed to, like, produce a growth… for a token, but this requires more knowledge of tokenomics, I suppose. But I just think that… ossification would prevent that kind of, that kind of growth to make Ethereum Classic a much bigger machine. 23:17Lunar WardenWell, the question is, where does the value from ETH Classic come from? Like, why would people buy it? If you're caring just about the token price, right? We're sort of… we're trying to understand… 23:29codeaholicPriceline. 23:31Lunar WardenRight, right. 23:32codeaholicBuy it for more than just the token price. 23:35Lunar WardenYeah, yeah, I agree, I agree. So we're trying to understand, like, what makes it valuable, what are, like, the principles underlying it? And you could say many things. You could say, maybe it's because we're trying to scale it, we're trying to get more transactions in it, we're trying to update it, but we're never going to be as fast as Solana, you know? We're never going to be… I think eventually we'll be more popular for DeFi protocols than Ethereum, but right now, we're never going to be that. We can't compete with, you know, BSC on, I don't know, like, corporate implementations or whatever. But the one thing we do have is the truth, like, the neutral, unchanging codebase. 24:16codeaholicBut this is… 24:17Lunar WardenThe truth would… 24:17codeaholicwith respect to the transaction history. Like, namely, that whatever code executed will continue executing. So, what this means to me, from a point of view of, like, what I would buy it for, even beyond when, like, when there's no common idea of an economy anymore in, like, 20 years or something. I don't know when it's gonna happen, because of robots and stuff like that. But, like, the immutability of the data structures for the applications you can deploy. So you can deploy Ethereal applications that, if you build Etsy correctly, it'll be available, like, even thousands of years into the future. And then as a result of that, the data structures that you can build on top of that, you'll always have them with you. So, like. 24:59Lunar WardenYeah, but that only works. Right, I agree, I agree, but that only works if the underlying protocol remains relatively unchanged. Right? Like, you know, it's only, like, you know, tamper-resistant, or it's only as resistant as the underlying protocol, and if we're changing, like, the underlying protocol, even at a small level, willy-nilly, like, are we gonna change it in big ways, willy-nilly as well? Like… 25:22codeaholicWell, eventually, though. 25:24Lunar WardenThat's a question. 25:24codeaholicmight remain Ethereum Classic, but won't it need to… won't it need to evolve? Because doesn't, like, won't Solidity need to evolve to support more memory access spaces or things? 25:35Lunar WardenThings like that. 25:35codeaholicLike, I actually don't know, I'm just asking. 25:37Lunar WardenWe can't compete with other chains on memory, we can't compete with other chains on transaction, like, throughput or whatever, but we can compete in this, like. on this vision of, of the truth, essentially, of unchanging, principles, of commitment to the Code Israel ideal. That's the one thing… 25:56codeaholicgo make… 25:56Lunar WardenYou know, she'll never be Being on the other… 25:59codeaholicMy question is more so about the virtual machine itself, like, won't it be upgraded? Won't the software need to be upgraded in the future to make more usage of additional hardware architectures that will exist in the future, additional network topologies so that it continues being relevant into, like, hundreds of years into the future. That's how I… that's how I'm thinking about this. So, but… 26:23Istora MandiriI think it's actually. 26:24codeaholicI have it out. 26:25Istora Mandiriit's… it's possible to achieve both. Like, I think we can have this property of immutability where contracts deployed today will faithfully execute as they do, forever. but also have this object format where going forward, additional features can be added, and you kind of, like, have versioning of contracts based on when they're deployed. So I think we can have the best of both worlds. And we just need to, like, line ourselves up with that potential future. And… Back to the question of whether we ossified today or not. I'm personally, like, I think we're still very early days. I think the changes to the protocol should be rare. And well thought through, and not introduce any additional risk. And most importantly. We can only be guided by our principles, and they're defined in… our past actions as a chain, as a community, and the documents that are written. And we need to refer to those when making decisions about the future. And… Like, any extremely… hardline stances about never updating the codebase, for example. Like, if we never do another hard fork, that's one position. But I think that also puts the chain at danger, and it would be nice if that was possible. But… In reality, like, I think there are certain things on the horizon that are gonna force hard forks to happen. Lest the chain go extinct. So, the question is, Where do you draw the line? 27:53codeaholicChainc. 27:53Lunar WardenYeah, right? 27:54codeaholicgo extinct. 27:56Lunar WardenI agree, in principle, if there's, like, if, you know, if there's, like, some crazy quantum threat, I agree in principle, you know, that, okay, we should… that should be fixed, you know, if… or if there's, like, you know, you know, I don't know, something wrong with, like, some low-level, like, assembly thing or whatever, you will think, Then that should be fixed. But sort of beyond that, it's really like, you know, the chain works as it is. The value proposition is always, like, we have the one true Ethereum, we have the one true chain that is never changing, that will never… that you can trust your transaction to actually be immutable. Like, one of the reasons, one of the reasons I'm interested in ETC now is I see what's going on with the DAO and with the Ethereum Foundation, like, the sort of the Dow is back, right? I don't know if you guys follow what they're saying, the Ethereum. 28:56Istora MandiriThey're distributing the funds, right, that they… 28:58Lunar WardenYeah, yeah, yeah. And so, I think… I think it's… I think it's only a matter of time before they actually start seizing wallets from, you know, so-called bad actors or whatever, or forcing sort of, like, protocol-level upgrades. So, it's just like, you know, they're driven on social consensus, right? 29:18Istora MandiriYep. 29:19Lunar WardenAnd the question is, like, what is our organizing principle? Our organizing principle… like, social consensus will just lead you to madness. Our organizing principle should be Should be at least as eternal as we can make it. Which means… Which means we'd be very conservative with any changes we try to make to the protocol. 29:41Istora MandiriYeah, I agree. And I think that, yes, this… the property of maintaining transaction finality and immutability is essential. It's, like, the only value proposition. And that's why Ethereum Classic exists, because Ethereum mainnet violated that. So, that's in our DNA, and I think everything flows from that. And… Any kind of change to the protocol must adhere to that rule. For all con- for all transactions that have occurred. And… Yeah, this is a wonderful topic, and I wish we had a longer window of opportunity to talk about it, but I think… There are some points in the agenda that we should address, and then maybe afterwards we can continue where we left off about the, the long-term… Ossification question. Because it's a really important topic, and I'm glad we've got some new, perspectives on that in this call. Okay, so just some… I guess, procedural things. Cody, I'm glad you're on this call. One of the… EIPs that was part of 1121. is EIP7935, which is setting the default gas limit to 60 million. And this is inherited from Ethereum upstream, but because Ethereum Classic does not have the… the… the need for this, I'm… And other community members in the past have expressed a desire to limit the gas limit. Is this something that's necessary to be part of 1121, and can it be dropped in order to avoid Any potential controversy around that set of otherwise I guess, quote-unquote, pure upgrades. And I wanted to mention here Diego, who messaged me in a DM, and he's given me a few thoughts that he wanted me to relay, as he's unable to join the call. But on EIP, 7935, he says. Currently, the network's by no means struggling block space-wise. It doesn't make sense to bring something like this up right now. So that's Diego's view on this. EIP. 32:03CodyYeah, I'd agree… I agree. I'd say defer it. I mean, bundling it just adds surface area for debate and doesn't really give any practical benefit. The miners set our limits, so it's not client defaults to set the block limit, so… Deferring it's fine. 32:20Istora MandiriAwesome. I agree. I think, yeah, it does make sense at this point. Okay, the next one is ECIP 1121 fork naming. Diego also had a comment on this. Just for context, so 1121 currently references the name Olympia, and this… Conflicts, maybe, with 11… 11 and 1115. That use this name in reference to the fork. So, should 1121 have its own distinct fault name, seeking input from community and ECIP authors? Diego's thoughts on this are… I'm against using Olympia for the next hard fork, unless it's decided to be in the ECIP11 one X line. It will be confusing for the public what is and what's not included if we name it Olympia, and it does not include the Treasury proposal. My proposal is to keep using X-Men villains, as we've been using for the last three hard forks, Mystique, Magneto, and Spiral. Any thoughts on that from… Participants. Cody? 33:41CodyYeah, I think it's a real problem. It's not a cosmetic one. I think if we activate 1121 under the name Olympia, then… And it doesn't have the Dow and everything else that's been hyped up. Then it's just gonna cause confusion, so we either need to… dip it with those and call it Olympia, or if this goes by itself, it has to have its own name. 34:12Istora MandiriYep, I think that… Makes sense. Personally, I don't really care what the name of the forks are. In terms of… The name doesn't really matter, what matters is the clarification, and… siloing of concepts, so that people are not confused. So… Unless Olympia or the Treasury is part of the next hard fork? Which, I guess we can get into in the next section. I think… making it clear that 1121 is not Olympia is a good idea, and then we can decide whatever the name is. If that's the next hard fork. Is my position on this. Are there any other participants that… have thought about Olympia as a name, and what… what's your impression of Olympia as people that are not, like, following the ECIP stuff closely? 35:20codeaholicIt would be nice to be able to leave comments on the GitHub. I'm not sure, like, if there's a technical issue or something, but… Seems like that was disabled. 35:36Istora MandiriYeah, I'm not sure… What's going on in that discussion thread? I do have this as an agenda item. Which we can open up, If there's no other thoughts on the name Olympia? I think we can say, like. I don't know how to come to a conclusion about what the next fork content is going to be. 1121 seems, like, easy and less controversial, and… I don't know if Olympia's actually ready to be implemented in the next Hard Fork. Unless we want to delay things significantly, so… it seems like it makes sense to just do 1121, call it something else. And then… Defer Olympia to the next one. 36:20CodyThere is another thing, I guess, that goes with it, is that EIP7910 also introduces the ethconfig RPC call, and so this is… it's, returns the fork name, so if we don't have the fork name, or if it's The same… we'd have to figure out what that is beforehand, also. 36:43Istora MandiriSorry, could you repeat the ECIP number… the EIP number? 36:46CodyEip7910. It's part of one, 1121. 36:56Istora MandiriI see. 36:58CodySo it's the JSON RPC that describes the configuration of the current and the next port. 37:05Istora MandiriOkay. And how is this gonna… is it… is this related to… Chain ID, Is this… This is more for client coordination. Or is it on a protocol level? 37:20CodyYeah, it's at the protocol level. So, whenever you're calling the node, you can make sure that you're getting the correct fork, or the… The correct chain that you're trying to interact with. 37:31Istora MandiriI see. And what happens if there's no… Next fork defined. 37:42Codywhat… it… that's how it behaves now, so it'd be the same behavior that it does now if we don't have this, 37:49Istora MandiriHmm. 37:49CodyFigured. So, it's just, we have to know what the name of the fork is. Is the… is the thing. 37:56Istora MandiriI see, I see. Okay. That's definitely something worthy of… further investigation. I really need to grok this EIP. To understand the… Impact? Do you have any… Initial thoughts about how you would… Go ahead with this, or exclude it. 38:23CodyNo, I mean, it's… as long as we name the fork something, we just can't name two of them the same thing, or have it be confusing. 38:30Istora MandiriRight. But the question is, do we bake in Olympia as the next fork name? 38:39CodyWell, what have you used in Nexus? Or as part of the testing, or is it, I guess, one of the… parameters in it? 38:46Istora MandiriI'm not sure. I'll have to double-check that. This is more of a question for… 38:55Lunar WardenI mean. 38:55Istora MandiriThe wider fork planning and the wider… strategy. Yes? 39:00Lunar Wardenmy sort of association with, Olympia, my understanding is Olympia is somewhat more controversial. For where they… like, the name Olympia, you know, it sets off alarm bells, let's say. So I don't know, if we're just talking about the name, like, maybe, is this related to Olympia? If it's related to Olympia, then, then it should be called Olympia. If it's not related to that, then it shouldn't be called that. If we're just talking about the name. I'm not, I'm not sure what the details are, I haven't, I haven't read. That's sort of my perspective. Oh, honey. 39:40Istora MandiriYeah, it is a little bit confusing, because the Olympia can mean two things, depending on the how it's, like, the context, like, Olympia could just mean the Treasury and the Olympia Dow, which has marketing calling it Olympia. And then separate from that is just the fork name, So… I think it's important to… I'm fine with… if the Olympia Treasury is implemented, then, yeah, call the fork Olympia. But the question is, do we bake in the assumption that Olympia is going to be implemented into the client? Or is that something that we should… not do. 40:24Lunar WardenI mean, I'm against, like, the actual Olympia Treasury thing. 40:30codeaholicYeah, I would say that requires more… more… more discussion or investigation into, like, more details, or certainly more code review things, and GitHub discussions, I would say. I agree. 40:47Lunar WardenWhat, what, what exactly… let me, let me read, what, this, this ECIP, what is it… what are we discussing exactly? 40:55Istora MandiriIt's EIP7910. 41:00Lunar WardenOkay, let me, let me give it, give it a read. 41:07JustjinIt'd be nice if you freebuilders here. 41:15Istora MandiriSorry, Jeskin, could you repeat that? It would be nice if… 41:19JustjinOh, I just said it'd be nice if Freebirdo's here. 41:22Istora MandiriOh, yeah. 41:23JustjinLike, so you can discuss, yeah, maybe. 41:38Istora MandiriYeah, I guess that kind of leads us to our next… Sorry, go ahead, Cody. 41:43CodyYeah, I was digging through notes. So… EIP7910, it adds a new RPC method that returns the active port configuration for a node. So, right now, if a wallet or a tool or a ADAP wants to know what fork of ETC node is running whenever it's sending, requests to it. It has to… Just infer what the block number is. And the client version that comes back. So there's no standard way of just asking what fork you are. And so, If you have two… An attacker could potentially, be running a pulse. chain, and there's no way to… Be able to tell, If you can't call and verify what fork you're on or what they're going to next. 42:36Istora MandiriRight. 42:36CodyAnd so, if we don't resolve it, the Olympia name collision happens, and half the chain forks and goes with Olympia, and another one goes with the other set of EIP or ECIPs that have been activated, then they could have the same last fork block, but they would have different, next fork blocks. And both chains could live happily off. On their own ways. 43:08Istora MandiriIt's confusing to me why this EIP… Returns the next fork. Why not just the existing fork? And what if there is no next fork? 43:27CodyFor coordination. Right now, none of our nodes on the network are returning an export, because there is no next port. But if this was enabled, you'd be able to see which ones were going to fork to the Olympia 4 o'. 43:40Istora MandiriOh, I see. 43:41CodyWe're gonna fork to. 43:44Istora MandiriSo this is more. 43:45CodyWhatever, superhero. Yeah. 43:48Istora MandiriI see. Got it. Okay. 43:50CodyThe support and communication problem. 43:55Istora MandiriSo, so the next fork value is not something that is, like, Necessarily hard-coded into the the client? It could be. But it means that miners and such node operators can signal That this is the fork they'll be switching to when it arrives. 44:19CodyYeah, so it benefits the block explorers, the wallet developers, all those people. We need to know, verify the fork state, not just… Hard coding block numbers in. 44:34Lunar WardenBut when you say… what exactly… when you say fork, like, my perspective is, like, will there be, like, should there be another fork? I don't think there should… When you say fork, is it… is it… is this just, like, the next ECIP, or, like, what… what exactly is counted in… in this? I'm not… I'm not very familiar with EIP77910. I'm trying to just sort of read and get an understanding of it. 45:07CodyWhenever we do the upgrades, we… Go ahead, Astroy. 45:11Istora MandiriYeah, I was gonna say that fork is probably a bit of a misnomer. Like, from the outside, it sounds like we're splitting. It just means an upgrade. 45:24codeaholicYeah, I was confused, too, about fork versus, like, just an upgrade. By upgrade, you mean one that does not require the miners to do anything different? 45:34Istora MandiriWell, you have a hard fork and a soft fork. A hard fork requires upgrading the protocol itself. And then, yeah, miners need to change their… Software. And for these next upgrades that we're talking about in 112.1, this is a hard fork, so it's an upgrade that requires miners to update their software. And this signaling mechanism Is a useful way. to gather consensus, I guess, on the network, and get diagnostics about Future hard forks? So that we can guarantee that everyone is on board with them before they actually happen. If I'm understanding correctly, Cody. 46:22CodyYup. 46:25Lunar WardenSo, how often does, does the ETC network, hard fork like this? How often do miners need to update their, is it, is it, like, is it, like, once a month, or once every 12 months? Like, how often is this done? 46:40Istora MandiriThere is a list of hard forks on the Ethereum Classic website, and they're not that common. I think the last one was a few years ago? 46:50Lunar WardenIt just, it seems, it seems like this is related to the Olympia stuff, so we should, we should maybe, we should maybe debate that. But that's my pers… like, it's called, it's called Olympia, it seems like it's related, if it's gonna be a hard fork as well. 47:06Istora MandiriYeah, so… this, like, this is part of the confusion, basically. So, we have… ECIP1121, and this is, as discussed in previous calls, introduced by Cody, is a kind of, like, controversy-free, pure upgrade with just nice things for ETC that are not controversial, basically. That has been referred to as Olympia in the 1121 ECIP. That's causing a bit of confusion. We should probably fix that. Then we have Olympia Treasury. the ECIP111 to 1115, and beyond. Now. That is the Olympia DAO, the Olympia Governance Contracts, the Olympia Treasury. So those two things have previously been, kind of. Overlapping in meaning, but they're separate things, and one can be done on its own, without the Olympia Treasury. So, it seems like the next obvious, easy-win step for ETC in terms of upgrading the protocol without Risking controversy. is to implement 1121. and talk about Olympia. Either in the fork after, or basically just allow this conversation and this debate to play out properly, and not try to rush things into the next hard fork. In a way that's… potentially… Not giving it enough time to be properly evaluated and tested. 48:45codeaholicThere's also, like, a budget of how many hard forks a community tolerates, right? Where is that not the case that… It's… there's, like, there's just friction from… Needing to upgrade. And you might lose some… Terrahash, or is that not the case? Or is it, like, these days that it's automatically… It automatically just upgrades itself if it's a hard fork? 49:14Istora MandiriThe main quote cost is just annoying. Miners and annoying, like, exchanges to upgrade software. EDC's nice, because they don't have to do it very often, so it just kind of runs itself. So every hard fork has some kind of cost. But it's not massive, and upgrading the software is not super difficult. It's just something that has to be done. And coordination itself has a cost. If we have to do things too many times and update every month, then people are just gonna not want to do it, so it's better to have, like, a balance between frequency, but also Convenience for node operators. I guess. 49:59Lunar WardenThis… this EIP1121, I have the number right. ECIP1121. This is what we're discussing right now. This would be, like, a soft fork on its own, yeah? 50:14Istora MandiriThis is a hard fork. 50:16Lunar WardenThis, this on its own? Would be a… would be a hard form. 50:20Istora MandiriThis would be… 50:22Lunar WardenThis change on its own would be a hard fork. 50:24Istora Mandirithis is a meta ECIP that has a bunch of other EIPs within it, and this could be implemented as just its own ECIP in the next version of the clients, and that would have an activation block, which would then Change the rules of the protocol. 50:43Lunar Wardento implement those. 50:45Istora MandiriERTs. 50:45Lunar Wardenit seems to me that this is all, like, closely related to Olympia, so this, you know, we should debate. We should debate this as part of Olympia. That's my… that's my initial impression. 51:01Istora MandiriCody, how'd you… Prefer to frame this. And, and how do you like to… relate… Olympia Treasury with $11.21. 51:16CodyGood question in this framing, I think. Because if the objection to Olympia is that it's Moving to a… or adopting 1559 in general is moving towards a more, DeFi-focused and progressive… Chain, where we're actually trying to be a competitive market for users. all of these would be included in that, I think. the Dow, the Treasury, the reason for doing all of that would be so that we could Fund operations and, actually have development on the chain. So I would think all of those would fall into this thing. So splitting out 1121, Is doing the minimum set of changes that we would need to do for user safety. and… So I think that that's the trade-off. And then the further ones that… have been submitted now, the 116, 17, 18, and 19 are In the same vein of, Trying to get more usage on the chain, have more active development, so it wouldn't be, a static dead chain. 52:48Istora MandiriOkay, so, from your perspective, we should keep the naming of Olympia for 1121. 52:57CodyNo, I think it can be done separately, if that's the desire, because these are the minimum things that Would keep the chain safe and running for… the foreseeable future. 53:09Istora MandiriOkay. I think it's. 53:11Lunar WardenListen to it. 53:12codeaholicSeparately. 53:14Lunar WardenMy understanding is the chain is safe and running, as we speak, as we speak right now. I do think, I do think this whole, this whole upgrade is part of, like, the whole, Olympia extended universe, so… so maybe we should, we should just, like, discuss Olympia. As, like, one package. I don't see, like, any reason why, you know, this should be… why it should be separated in two. 53:40Istora MandiriWell, in 1121, To quote, it says, this ECIP serves as an extension bookend from the Olympia ECIP option set. And within the ECIP, the Olympia ECIP option set, ECIP 1120 is listed. And 1120 is, like, not… It's an alternative to Olympia. So… or at least from my perspective as the author of that ECIP, I thought it was, like. in my mind, Olympia is the treasury, and… 1120 is an alternative to doing a treasury, so… I wouldn't classify it as Olympia. 54:30JustjinYeah, I would say anything that creates confusion and uncertainty, especially in this kind of industry, I would say just, like, it… not… don't have it, you know? You don't need confusion. More confusion is not needed. 54:50Istora MandiriThe other thing I wanted to mention is that coupling the The non-controversial upgrades with a controversial thing. is… I'm hesitant about it being a good tactic. And it feels like they should be… independently, judged? So the… 55:13codeaholicYes, good. 55:17Istora MandiriAnd, the other issue is that if they are packaged together, then if Olympia And it's extended. contract system. Requires additional time to… Evaluate. Then it just delays implementing stuff this year. When there's no need to. And there's been some recent updates in the Olympia discussion. In… in the last few days. Some… Fiery opinions were shared. I do apologize, Cody, if I did come off a little bit irritated during some of the discussion in Discord, but… Yeah. I'll… I'll try to… Be less inflammatory in my language. And, and just pure… To the point, but it is… Getting to the point where, like, trying to engage in the discussion itself is… Frustrating, because comments are getting deleted, and… Answers are not being answered. directly, and I'm being misdirected, and saying this thing's already been talked about, but actually it's not. So, that's… that's the source of my frustration with this particular discussion. And it's not meant to be personal, and I… I don't frame anything. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I do apologize if that came off the wrong way. But with regards to the Olympia discussion, there have been some new proposals. We've got 1116 to 19. And we've also got this… answer with regards to the bootstrap issue and the transition issue. Now, these are two separate things. First of all, bootstrapping, In my mind, is referring to how the initial voting rights are ceded. And it seems like the current contract has this NFT that is somehow distributed to some people. It's not defined how, but that's what I mean by bootstrapping. And then we also have this transition system, which is, how do you go from 11… 12 to 11.13. In a way that doesn't require two hard forks. And it seems like… we can… we can separate these two discussions. I think the… The original, like, voting rights bootstrap thing. It's still not really answered. But we could maybe focus right now on this transition between 1112 and 1113. It seems, Cody, that your position is that 11.13 should actually be implemented, and a Create 2. Hard-coded contract is included in 1112. So, this goes back to my original point that there is, in fact, a hard dependency between 11.12 and 11.13 that was denied for the last 4 months. So, this is… this is the source of my frustration, really. And, yeah, if we could maybe hash this out. Unfortunately, again, Chris decided not to join the call, but, here we are. So I guess, Cody, is your belief that the Treasury contract should be pre-computed and hard-coded into Any fork that includes 1112. 58:39CodyYes. 58:41Istora MandiriOkay. That is exactly what I believed from the very start, and what was avoided, and I think it's the only legitimate option that avoids admin keys and centralization. So, thank you for clarifying that. But it does bring a big question, which is… What is that contract? And are we gonna compute it Blindly, how do we evaluate it, and how long is it going to take to figure out which elements of that contract are… part of the next hard fork. How do we evaluate it? How do we test it? That is a long process. And I think it should be done in a separate stream. That's not holding up every other hard fork. 59:23CodyYeah, and that's the argument for the 1121, going on its own. 59:30Istora MandiriYo. And with this… 59:35CodyAnd… 59:36Istora MandiriYeah, go ahead. 59:38CodyI was gonna say, on that, also, Chris is… Updating 1-1, or… We have too many ones and twos. He's making updates to that with the, contracts. So… And… You're right, those should have been public before I saw in the comments that they… it was 3 weeks, and… This comment thread's also been going on for, it looks like, 2 years now, so, Yeah, that was… Yeah. There was confusion all around on it. 1:00:14Istora MandiriI… I'm suppressing my annoyance as I speak, but yeah, it's… it is really quite… not… fair, I think. It's really, in a way, dishonest to have this conversation, and he's saying that these questions have been answered, and then when it comes to the code, like. Clearly, what you were saying before can't be true. And why… Like, why do I need to chase up these questions? Surely they should have been answered before we even got to this point. Is my position. But yeah, that's, That's how this, I really encourage, like, listeners to look at this Olympia upgrade discussion thread. Like, you can see half the comments there are, like, hidden. We have, Codeaholic on this call, who's been… I believe you're not allowed to post on that thread, right? For some reason. 1:01:15codeaholicYeah, I posted one comment. And, it went through, and then… it was disabled to, like, post more comments on there for some reason, or to reply to what I posted already. But I didn't, like, leave an inflammatory comment or anything, so… just, my intention was And it still is to primarily ask questions, like clarifying questions, or if I observe something, to just ask a question. That's basically what my intention is, but yeah, it would not be, like, inflammatory on there or anything like that. 1:01:52Istora MandiriYeah, so people can judge for themselves whether this Debate is being done. With a level playing field? 1:02:01Lunar WardenI mean, the truth, the truth always gets out, like, you can't, you can't censor away the truth. Like, if you have to… I agree 100%. 1:02:13Istora MandiriYeah. 1:02:16Lunar WardenIf you have to resort to, like, sponsorship to, you know, enforce your arguments, enforce your worldview, it's quite fragile. And and eventually, you know, the truth always gets out. 1:02:30Istora MandiriI just forgot that I also need to relay another of Diego's comments here, and this is… Quite big, Diego is saying that he is against any base fee discretional usage, and he cannot support ECIP 11-1X family. So that means… Diego, the core maintainer of, the main client. is against the Olympia Treasury, as well, as me, and many people in the community, so… It's… like… at some point. I don't know… how this is gonna go, I don't know how, like… Eager people are to implement this thing and push it through regardless, but… there has to be an off-ramp at some point, otherwise we're gonna be into this inevitable chain split, and that's gonna be really painful. And I really hope we can avoid it. But… There's enough of us against this thing. To basically guarantee that the original chain is going to continue, whatever happens. So… But would they… 1:03:40Codywe're… 1:03:41Istora MandiriYep. 1:03:41CodyTo an interesting time, then. Because it seems like there's at least 3 camps, then. One that doesn't want to do any changes at all, one that wants to do the minimum changes, which would be 1121 and 1120. And then one that wants to… become a… blockchain that goes and, is active and competes in the DeFi space. So… 1:04:10codeaholicYes. 1:04:11CodyIs that a fair framing? 1:04:12codeaholicthe third one. Yes, I'm. 1:04:14Lunar WardenThe third one. 1:04:14codeaholicWe should build for, like. 1:04:16Lunar WardenFeel free to compete in the DeFi space, guys. Feel free to compete in the DeFi space. I'm gonna stick to a chain that doesn't work and doesn't, stick to a chain that never updates. I'm gonna stick to that one. Feel free to compete Lana, and everything else. 1:04:30codeaholicI don't know about DeFi, I just know that the core technology, from an engineering point of view, can continue to improve and get bigger, and the deployables to it can get better. So that's… that's my mindset, like, I… I care about the technology, like, the proof of work is super cool. There's a hardware… Network underlying it. That can grow in size. The language that runs on the virtualization We'll be able to improve to make usage of it. So, that's how I approach it. I don't think ossification is the right path here. I think that's what you're referring to, Cody, like, when you're talking about the camps, right? Like, favoring ossification versus minimal updates versus, like, really big upgrades. 1:05:13CodyYeah. I think that's a fair framing. 1:05:16Istora MandiriI would say, I mean… 1:05:17codeaholicDid you say that. 1:05:18Istora MandiriI'm in a fourth camp, and that is… I'm happy to go in many different directions, as long as we don't do a treasury. That's basically my red line. and how things evolve outside that, like, there's no… there's no problem with being DeFi, there's no problem with ossification, from my point, as long as we don't, like, violate those core principles. And I believe this Treasury does that, so I can't support it. 1:05:42CodyYeah, that's… 1120 doesn't have the treasury, does it? That's, correct. Diego's… yeah. So 1120 and 1121 was the… the middle camp. Do the upgrades minimally. No Treasury. Everything goes to the miners. 1:06:04Istora MandiriOkay, but I'm also, like, this is one option that I'm okay with. I'm also okay with ossification, I'm just not okay with the Treasury. I'm also open to other upgrades that are not Treasury-based, but also provide additional functionality, like new opcodes and crypto. that enable L2 and other DeFi protocols. So, I'm, like, I'm pro 1559, as I've explained, but I just don't think a treasure is needed. So, I wouldn't frame it as, like, I'm against DeFi, I'm against innovation. 1:06:33CodyYeah, yeah, no, yeah, I didn't mean to premise that. I'm saying, if… As you read the… 1:06:41Lunar WardenTo be clear, to be clear, I am against I am against the innovation. Right? If you're innovating, then you're losing the one thing that makes ETC valuable. 1:06:56JustjinWell, if it adds value to ETC, like, I would… I would say… consider, yeah. But don't rush anything. 1:07:07CodyYeah, I would frame it more as, one's more proactively, Trying to do that through a Treasury and a funded development team. And the other one's a more conservative approach of a slower timeframe of updating. But… The way that we've… 1:07:27JustjinYeah. 1:07:28Codydone it. Up till now. 1:07:30JustjinYeah, I… like, I used to think like that before, as… to have a treasury in it as well, and I, like, I don't know, maybe if you go back, whatever, like, during, Mr. Hoskinson's, time here, but, Yeah, like, thinking about it further, it's like, it's gonna… it's gonna, like. It's gonna centralize ETC, in my opinion, so that's… Yeah, that's my thing about the Treasury. That's… yeah, that's the only thing. But adding… adding value to UTC, that… yeah, like, who… who would be against that? Like… 1:08:14Lunar WardenThe value… the value, my understanding is the value of ETC comes from its neutrality, its immutability. It's… it's the… the code is law, not just, you know, for smart contracts, but for the governance itself, right? For the protocol level itself, right? It's like. 1:08:29JustjinYeah, brilliant. 1:08:29Lunar Wardenand trust. 1:08:30Istora MandiriWell, that's fair. 1:08:31Lunar WardenValue will be stored. for however long it takes, right? That no, like, update is gonna fork the chain, rug it, and so on. And so, the only thing we can compete on is this. We're never gonna compete with Solana on transactions, or… or with, I don't know, BSC for, like, you know, meme coin pump and dumps. Like, the only value is the truth. It's, like, the chain that never formed. The original… Oh, dear chain with smart contracts. 1:09:01Istora MandiriI would take your point, Luna, but… Let's think about this, like, the value isn't… the code base itself not changing. The value is the immutability of contracts. It's the ledger. 1:09:14Lunar WardenIt's a belief that other people have in it. It's the belief that other people have in it, yeah. 1:09:19Istora MandiriAgreed. But as long as transactions are Immutable and final. then is that not the value proposition itself? Like, regardless of what happens… 1:09:29Lunar Wardentransactions. It's not just the transactions, but it's like the, you know, it's the protocol surrounding the transactions. It's also, you know, will the community, you know, get greedy and try to change it? Or are all the… are all the miners, like, still virtuous and still aligned with the, with the original principles, with the original founding goal? Principle of it. 1:09:54Istora MandiriI agree, I agree, but, like, we need to remember the ultimate end is maintaining transaction immutability, and that means increasing the value of the chain, it means incentivizing miners, it means a high hash rate. 1:10:06Lunar WardenOh, what, increase… like, temporarily increasing the market cap of the chain? No, no, I… 1:10:13Istora MandiriI… what I mean is… The chain is secured by miners. Miners are incentivized by the price of ETC. If the price of ETC goes up, the chain is more secure, and therefore transactions are more immutable. So, it's in the… it's like this virtuous security feedback loop, where… the higher the price, the more valuable the chain, and the more immutable the contracts. 1:10:40Lunar WardenIn the short term, you know, the market is a popularity contest. In the long term, it's like a truth-seeking. That's sort of, maybe not perfect. 1:10:50codeaholicIsn't the immutability a function of, like, the chain of data? Like, the physical size of it, and not so much the value of the token? Because, like, the token value is just the reward in a specific quantity, based on how much computation is done. And this is what, like, halvings are, isn't it? Where the quantity might change. This was my understanding so far. But, like, the value. 1:11:14Lunar Wardenof the new… 1:11:14codeaholicshouldn't be changing, how immutable it is. Like, it's either immutable or it's not based on The full size of the chain. Right? 1:11:25Istora MandiriOr the security… 1:11:26codeaholicI think it's… 1:11:27Istora MandiriBasically, it's a very difficult thing to quantify, but security, in quotation marks, consists of a number of things, and it's, like, maintaining decentralization, it's… having enough hash rate is, like, a really important thing. And if there are pools that have Like, a large percent of the hash rate that can attack the chain, then this makes it unusable, and that in turn reduces the security of the chain, which in turn makes it even more easy to attack. So, having a high hash rate is, like, the defense that proof of work provides to enable this immutability. Without the hash rate, Without the value, then… It's just a database. Basically. 1:12:11codeaholicYeah, you're talking about hash rate value, not token value. 1:12:15Istora MandiriBut they're the same thing. They're inextricably linked together. And I don't mean the token value at any given day, I mean the market cap overall over time. And the more, like, valuable the ETC is, in total. The more value that miners get from mining blocks, and that means they're incentivized to do it, and that's increasing the hash rate. 1:12:39Lunar WardenI agree, and I… and I do think ETC will… I… look, I genuinely believe that ETC, like, ETC against ETH, or ETH against ETC is going to zero. Like, I genuinely believe that ETC will overtake ETH one day. Maybe not even… like, and the thing is, I don't think we even have to do anything for that to happen. I think we can just sit here and do nothing, and that'll happen eventually, because they're based off social consensus, whereas we at least have… We at least, you know, at least we're trying to be more virtuous and to follow our principles and the code and whatever. And so, if you're saying, oh, you know, we need to adapt the codebase in order to, in order to… in order to compete on various metrics, I don't know, gas fees, like, user compatibility, transaction throughput. It's like, you can never compete with these chains. That's not where our value is. You can never… like, we're not going to be more valuable by competing on these, like. On these, frankly, like, fake metrics, or relatively… 1:13:45Istora MandiriTo make my position clear. I want to separate the, like, immutability of the contracts and the immutability of the protocol. And the only question is, which is more important? 1:14:01Lunar WardenI think they're, they're both… it's not only… 1:14:04Istora MandiriAnd no, there's a third… 1:14:06Lunar Wardenlayer as well. There's a third layer as well, right? It's the virtue of the people that are… it's the virtue of the community itself, right? Because you could say, we're the original immutable Ethereum, and… and… and the other… the number two market cap, Ethereum, right now. These are the people who abandoned their principles for short-term profits. 1:14:32Istora MandiriBut at the end of the day… 1:14:33codeaholicProof of Work is inherently valuable to Ethereum Classic. I don't want to have people forget about that aspect, because Solana is staked, right? Like, you cannot mine it, so… Ethereum Classic is inherently valuable, not just in its immutability, but also in the proof of work. And the physical network should increase in size, and if the community is thinking about things in the right way over, like, hundreds of years into the future, then I think Ethereum Classic is uniquely positioned to because of that mechanism of proof of work with the smart contracts and all the virtualization possibilities, you could build a lot of cool stuff, you know? So that's how I think about it. 1:15:17Istora MandiriYeah, totally. My, my… the thing I'm trying to get at, really, is that it's more of, like. All of the other things, the protocol, the social. Any other part of it, the mining, it all is to achieve the same end and the ultimate goal, which is The immutability of contracts, and the faithful execution of transactions. And all the other things can change more than that, because that is the end goal, right? That's the reason, the raison d'etre. And I think it's okay to upgrade the protocol to fix, like. bugs, and to make us secure against quantum in the pursuit of transaction Like, protecting that execution layer, basically. So, we need to have this hierarchy of what's okay to change, what's not okay to change, and as long as that goal of maintaining contract immutability is the number one thing. Then we can, like, figure out, okay, if we want to achieve that, then Maybe we do need to change some of the things, lower down on the hierarchy. So, that's my… understanding. Of why it's okay to change the protocol, basically, sometimes. 1:16:34codeaholicI agree, and I would also agree with Justin, what he said about, it doesn't have to be, like, if it's valuable, great, and it doesn't have to be, like, anything rushed, because… To understand system improvements can take some time, you know? 1:16:50Lunar WardenI agree, I agree. In principle, you know, if there is some sort of, like, Armageddon bug, if there is some sort of, you know, quantum, quantum, you know, ghost, or… you can imagine any sorts, any sort of these, These, like, necessary hard forks, then… then it should, then, of course we should… we should hard fork. And then the question is, like, what… what exactly counts? What exactly counts? And maybe, you know, I… I should… I should go through, I should do the reading, I should… I should see exactly what hard forks have happened in the past, and what was… And what soft forms have we done? And so that's something I do need to read up on. But, Yeah, my perspective is, you can't compete, like. There's this quote from, I think, some of the early Christian writers. It's like, you can't compete with the devil on speed. the devil is faster than you. You can't compete with the devil on work, because the devil will work through the night. You can't compete with him on cunning, because he's more cunning. But the one aspect we can compete with the devil on is humility. And so, if ETC just stays humble, stays true to the code as law roots, then we can become even more valuable than the original Ethereum, than Solana, than all the other chains, as long as we remain humble. So that's sort of, like, my perspective. 1:18:16Istora MandiriAmen to that. I think, Now would be a good time. We are running over. If Cody still has a few minutes, maybe now would be a good time to just introduce the new ECIPs. That would be 16 to 19. Cody, are you available to do that? 1:18:34CodyYeah, Yeah, so these, four ECIPs are… are drafts, still working on them. They address the biggest objections to the Olympia Treasury proposals, so… 1116 solves the minor alignments. Miners get 95% of the base fee. It removes the economics, arguments that have been around Olympia. 117 solves the governance capture, so instead of token voting, it's a prediction market, mechanic, so… It… serves a benefit and drives, utility to the network. 118 solves accountability. looking at payment gates and milestones and, around the Treasury, so it's not just lump sum payouts. There's, community involvement. And 119, solves regulatory concerns. So, This prevents the entire chain from getting shut down at some point from a treasury if it goes to sanctions addresses or any of those. So… These are… 1:19:48Istora MandiriThat is quite interesting. it is… it does… I mean, from what I understand, it's basically like the OFAC compliance thing, right? Where if you're sending to a North Korean address, then They want to shut the whole thing down. And that's… 1:20:09CodyThat's definitely the, it's… most relevant to my day job. So… It's the immutability of smart contracts. Is a big thing, so being able to ensure that we're not, funding terrorism or, sending the sanctions addresses, or any of those things, it… Right. Opens up the… opens it up to a competitive Oracle. Marketplace so that, the likes of Chainlink and others can come in with their Oracle services and offer these lists and receive payments for verifying, the payments are not Going in, non-sanctioned. addresses. Or, are only going to non-sanctioned addresses. 1:21:01Istora MandiriDo you, do you feel that this… Given that it is… like, on their own, as part of a treasury system, I think these are awesome, and, like, good evolutions. My concern is that, like, tying it directly into the ETC protocol creates, like, additional risk for the rest of the system. And… 1:21:24Codywhoop. 1:21:25Istora Mandirilike, having. 1:21:25CodySo… 1:21:26Istora MandiriYeah. 1:21:27CodyYeah, I was gonna say, the… OFAC came out in 2021, and their guidance was that the smart… the automation alone isn't enough to satisfy compliance. There has to be human oversight, and that's what the oracles are attempting to solve, is it is… Technical, human oversight into the process. Oh. 1:21:50Istora MandiriRight. 1:21:51CodyYou can't just automate it, it's gotta be… 1:21:54Istora MandiriYeah. 1:21:55CodyHuman in the loop part. 1:21:58Istora MandiriDo you have any… 1:22:00Codyoff on a robot rant, but that'll also be important in when, with all the DeFi, or… not… not DeFi, but the, Agent payment protocols that are, and… later EIPs? So, the ones that are allowing agents to use and interact with websites or do secure payments. Being able to validate that those are, Not bad, either, is important. 1:22:36Istora MandiriDo you think it's important that hard forks Are aligned with the core principles of ETC. 1:22:48CodyI do. That's what would make it EDC, I think. 1:22:51Istora MandiriYeah, do you think some of those principles we could, like, glean from some of the founding documents? Like the… the Declaration of Independence that was published on the website in 2016, and the Decentrist Manifesto that was also there at the start, because I think that's kind of what people were aligned around. In terms of principles, in the most explicit cases that we have. 1:23:19CodyThink so. 1:23:20Istora MandiriOkay. 1:23:20CodyI think, like, as I said, I think we've come to a point where there's two different versions of the future. One's more of the conservative Changes in one… more… Progressive. 1:23:35Istora MandiriDo you think that… It's important for anyone participating in blockchain-enabled cooperation to be on an equal footing with everyone else. That is, neutrality is necessary, and everyone, every participant from the protocol's point of view, needs to be treated equally. 1:23:53CodyYes, I agree with that. 1:23:56Istora MandiriDo you not think that the implementation of an OFAC Layer. Kind of goes against that. Because then they're on a different footing from the average ETC holder. 1:24:14CodyI think that that's where it… comes to a conflict with, I guess, the real world that we would have to live in. The blockchain's value is zero if it can't be used because anyone using it We'll be marked a… international terrorist. 1:24:30Istora MandiriWell, this is only true if you have the Treasury, right? If you keep things as they are, you don't introduce that additional unequal footing. Because the protocol treats everyone equally, as it is. 1:24:46Lunar WardenSome of us here could be international terrorists. 1:25:01Istora MandiriLike, this has been my… core concern since the start of the Olympia proposal, which is, like, how you do it in a way that is neutral, and how do you decide… who's the admin that gets to decide which people have special roles? like… Why is it the US OFAC compliance thing instead of the Chinese OFAC compliance thing? why would it be tied to an LLC in… Where is it, Dallas? No, not Dallas. 1:25:31CodyWyoming. 1:25:31Istora MandiriDenver, or Wyoming, yeah. Like, these decisions… Unnecessarily, like, putting new roles into the protocol. The… Kind of, in my opinion, go against those core foundational documents that say that everyone needs to be on an equal footing. So I don't see how that… actually aligns with what ETC is fundamentally about. 1:25:55codeaholicI, I agree. 1:25:55CodyWe also give the voting ability as well, so it… it… All of these incorporate some community feedback that's controlling this process. 1:26:05Istora MandiriIt is an interesting one. 1:26:06Codybecomes… chain. 1:26:08Istora MandiriThis is how you bootstrap that. How do you decide the initial distribution of those rights? Because that is necessarily introducing subjectivity. 1:26:37CodyAnd it is a core problem to solve. That's what we're looking to do. Our problem now is there's not enough people to be concerned with it. And half of us won't even sit in the same call with each other. 1:26:53Istora MandiriYep. Well, I'm gonna keep coming, and I'm glad that you are Cody, and I'm glad that actually these calls are gaining more momentum, and more people are turning up. And we're gonna be having more discussions, like, it's not gonna go away, and… like, there are unresolved things that need to be resolved, basically. And the only way we can do that is through open discussion and dialogue. Like, running away from the… the topics? It's not gonna help anyone. They need to be, like, taken on. And you need to show the… one side of the debate is correct or not, depending on, like, open discourse, and so far, I haven't really seen that from Some participants, hopefully that changes, I'm doubtful. But… I'm always… Welcome to be surprised. my main concern is that it's gonna, unless resolved beforehand, gonna inevitably lead to this, like… Game of… like a game theory situation similar to the Dow hard fork. Back in 2016, which, you know, people… They've invested too much, and they can't back down from their position, and they just push everyone over the edge. I hope we don't get there, but… 1:28:14Lunar WardenLook, I know I said some… I know I said I made some disagreements here, but I legitimately, even if we are, you know, defending our principles, I legitimately don't want to see a chain fork, even if it is… like a small chain pork or whatever, or even if we… we are… we're defending my… you know, maybe it's more important to defend their principles, but… but also, like, I don't want to see a chain pork, so we should… we should try to, like, have… have open discussions and figure out some way, like, we can all come to an agreement. So… ultimately, it's, it's, like, fair, fair and open discussion, I think, is, is the, Is the way to go, I don't know. And, and kindness, kindness, respect. cent. 1:29:02Istora Mandiriand I've… I've actually created a pull request to the main website repo, which is the Ethereum Classic Maintain a pledge. This is in response to one of Chris Mercer's discussion topics that he opened about, like, having some more formalization for… how maintainers… behave, I guess. And basically, I've tried to align… I've tried to create this Thing that we can all agree on in our discourse about. Like, aligning ourselves with the principles of the chain, and, like, mapping this to the actual documentation that we can reference in terms of decentralization, censorship resistance, permissionlessness, openness, neutrality, immutability. And some other additional things, like respecting each other, and not pushing agendas. And I think this is, like… non-controversial, shouldn't be controversial, this is just, like, basic dignity, I think, for… what was already expected, and what I think has been happening. Most of the time. So, maybe this is a… I'm happy to sign this pledge. I put it out there in case people want to comment on it. But as maintainers, it would be cool if we could Try to get back into a situation where we're not just in stalemate again. It's been… it's been here for a long time. We made a bit of progress since the last call in terms of merging the Disclaimer, and I think that opens the door to publishing more articles about this debate topic. But I really… Yeah, we need to frame things in a way that's fair. And not try to… Mislead people, use bullhorns. For announcing forks that may or may not happen. Like, to me, that's the biggest problem that's been occurring in the last… saga of this Olympia thing, because people are concerned, people are confused, it's hurting the chain. And if Olympia doesn't happen in the way that it was announced before, like… It… it only hurts the chain. 1:31:12CodyAnd on that, we have a big backlog in the… the… Ethereumclassic.org. 1:31:19Istora MandiriYep. 1:31:21CodyThose things, but they're… Over a year old now at this point. Maybe we need to write something up that's new. That details out what the options are. Just to lay them all out plainly. 1:31:35Istora MandiriI totally agree. There's… there is exactly a pull request for that. Which has been blocked by… Guess who? It seems pretty balanced, he wants to change things, but… You can see for yourself whether these comments are reasonable, and if there's a reason to, like, hold up that merge. But we can't… like, fully… just be in this stalemate. And I do think, like, we need to just be honest with where things are. And just for reference, that ECA… that pull request number is… It's 1658. Chris's main objection seems to be that I'm framing it as a debate article. In whether or not 1559 is actually implemented, but… it's not. That's just the title of the pull request, so… If you look at the content of the PR, I've tried to make it fairly balanced, and… I'm not making any, like, absolute claims, saying that this is that. I'm framing it as one side thinks this, one side thinks that. And we're at Crossroads. Apparently, that's not… fair. So… 1:33:10CodyPulling it up now, one moment. This is from January. 1:33:29Istora MandiriYep. 1:33:31CodyYeah, I'll… I'll review it this week. 1:33:35Istora MandiriGood. 1:33:36CodyAnd, yeah, see what changes we can incorporate from this call, and… I think that'll be a good move-forward point, because at this point, we've been… It's been a long time since even the first articles came out. And we need to get things moving again, one way or another. 1:33:55Istora MandiriI totally agree. All I want to guarantee is that the framing is not declarative, saying that this is going to happen or that is going to happen, and that readers are given, like, a realistic representation of what's happening. And it is not set in stone, it's a debate, so… I'm sorry, the… I just can't in good conscience approve things that mislead people. And we are… it's been a long call, 90 minutes, Since we're over, I'll give a window of opportunity for people, if they would like to have any final comments. I'll be silent for a few minutes, a few seconds. 1:34:48codeaholicSure, I'd like to just thank all of you, fantastic to meet the ones who I just met today. Great subject matter. Ethereum Classic is fantastic, I look forward to learning more about it, and since we went over this time, I'll be at the next one, of course, but I just wanted to leave you all with an invitation to review Elysium. It's fundamentally just an example of how if… You wanted to have, like, an engine or some kind of mechanism that generates utility. You could route base fee through that instead. And it's just my attempt to show, like, a difference, or, like, a different way to… Try to channel that productivity or that value into making it bigger. I believe that the math is very, very firmly on my side in this, but it does require, like, a deeper dive and more discussion. Which I'll be available for, especially in the Discord, so I invite you all to join us in the Discord for pretty meaty discussions eventually. I'm gonna keep developing. So I invite conversations, anytime, but yeah, like I said, really pleased to meet all of you, and you can find me in the Discord, in both Discords. I'm Codeholic in one, and Gravity Lab in the other one. But, yep, hope y'all have a wonderful night. Or a day, depending on where you're at. 1:36:15Istora MandiriThank you, Codaholic, and I apologize for not coming back to that. Let's have, on the next call, if you're available, a dedicated time slot for us to discuss that. I think it's an intriguing avenue, and definitely deserves some attention on a call. So, apologies if we didn't have time for that this week, this time, but… 1:36:35codeaholicNo problem, no problem, I appreciate that. 1:36:40Istora MandiriCool. And it'd be also… as the author of the quantum resistance thing, that's also a very cool topic, so maybe we can have, like, a wider discussion as well next time. 1:36:51codeaholicDefinitely. 1:36:53Istora MandiriAwesome. Anyone else? 1:36:56Lunar WardenFor next time, I will… I'm gonna try to read through the entire history of hard forks for Ethereum Classic and soft forks as well. And sort of get a perspective, maybe write down some ideas on when exactly this should happen. Just sort of to maybe clarify my… my position, and maybe throw some ideas out there. I did enjoy this call. I thought it was… I thought it was pretty good. Boom. So, yeah, it's great to, it's great to, I guess. Start joining the community, be part of the community, though. Hello to all you guys, nice to meet you all. Thanks, cheers, guys. 1:37:35Istora MandiriThank you, Luna, and thanks for your contributions to the call. It was indeed, very stimulating. Final opportunity for sign-offs? Okay, and with that, I will conclude this Cool, Final reminder that the next call will be on Friday, April 3rd, 2026, at 0200 hours UTC. That's April 2nd in America. And we look forward to seeing you then. There's also the AMAX spaces. You can find more information about both calls at cc.etheriumclassic.org. Thanks, everyone, for joining. Take care. See you later. Bye-bye. 1:38:22codeaholicThanks, have a good one. 1:38:25CodyThanks, everyone.

Spring ETC-Quinox

Preamble

Key Points Discussed

Pull Request Corner

ECIPs

ethereumclassic.org

Last Call Recap

Agenda

Bitmain ETC AMA

EIP-7935: Set Default Gas Limit to 60M

ECIP-1121 Fork Naming

Governance Clarification Request

Olympia Discussion

New ECIPs: 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119

ETC Nexus Updates

Sign Off

AI Summary

Discussed topics

EIP-1559 and ossification debate

EIP-7935 deferral from ECIP-1121

ECIP-1121 fork naming

Olympia Treasury discussion

New ECIPs 1116–1119

Maintainer pledge and governance clarification

Elysium proposals and quantum resistance

Action items

Full Transcript