Quote from: btcshiner on Today at 08:37:29 PM

Quote from: Ardvark69 on Today at 08:07:00 PM

Interestingly enough I will be on the 1559 panel in two weeks so if anyone has some good talking points let me know. As a miner I am definitely against lowering my income so my intent is to push for a compromise. We likely will have to give a little but I think they are open to compromise to avoid a large backlash. I think the EF is shocked that miners are speaking up as they are probably used to us being silent.

I do find it amazing that a lot of people are talking about how miners are making a lot right after ETH holders are experiencing a 20x+ return on investment in 1 year. I'm not even at a 2x return on my equipment purchase from July-Oct 2020. Its also pretty sad that a lot of saying miners are being greedy and we need 1599 to reduce fees or ETH prices will collapse despite one of the EF devs making a post stating that "1559 will not decrease fees".

My technical knowledge is lacking so I will be cramming everything in for the next two weeks.

The youtube link to the panel is below.

https://youtu.be/EdXhL6VR0mU

From what I have read this proposal does not actually solve the high gas price. The reason this proposal is being pushed is institutional investors like GreyScale think it will drive up prices as the base fee, that will still rise in congested times, will be burned causing there to be less and less ETH available thus increasing price due to scarcity.

A lot of people don't realize this will not immediately solve the issue of high gas prices and the institutional investors need a villain to rally the troops against push it through. Thus miners who are making an investment into ETH just in a different way from traders are being vilified to push through something that is not good for the eco system as a whole.

A lot of new people to crypto don't realize that miners secure the network and are vital to the health of a coin. This plan is only going to centralize the wealth of eth to large institutional investors and to keep the network secure they will need the help of large institutional asic farms or they will risk a split when this is implemented in a hard fork.

With the difficulty bomb coming this summer this plan should be pushed off until ETH is 100% POS. This compromise will keep the chain secure until the effects of 1599 can be fully understood and a test chain of the hard fork properly tested for security flaws it will likely open up.

edit to add miners are not causing high gas prices or congestion on the chain. Investors trading and trying to move tokens to take advantage of a moving market are. This is about institutional investors wanting to make more money and squeeze it out of miners who "just keep the chain up and secure" so in their eyes we deserve less than they do.

I was asked to expand on the difficulty bomb. This was brought to my attention by another member in the thread below.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5309561.20

quoting this article: https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/ethereum-dodges-difficulty-bomb-with-last-minute-fork

"The difficulty bomb was first introduced to the network in the Homestead update of March 2016 and is designed to make the puzzles used to mine Ethereum blocks more difficult over time until eventually they are so difficult to solve it causes delays on the network. In this way, miners will be gradually incentivized to transition to a more sustainable network, before an 'Ice Age' is ushered in and they are forced to switch because mining has become unprofitable."

The difficulty bomb was delayed. You can read more about why here

https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2384

Countdown to when the "bomb" goes off and we transition to the "iceage"

https://etherscan.io/block/countdown/12800000

To sum this up, from my limited understanding, this is supposedly a way to force the dev's to a timeline that moves ETH to an all POS chain and a way to avoid a second chain that remains as POW by essentially making the current ETH chain unprofitable to mine and use.