search

ethereum-funding / blockrewardsfunding

Project Management is happening in this repo, see the Issues! This is a fork of ethereum/eips.
18 stars 3 forks source link

Absolute vs. relative rewards #20

Open lrettig opened 5 years ago

lrettig commented 5 years ago

In #9 you introduce the idea of a 10% reward. I want to explore whether this is how we should be framing it.

On the one hand, I see the appeal. "Taxes" are usually expressed in percentage terms. This is what Zcash, DASH (?) and other projects do, AFAIK.

The problem with this framing is that it implies that we are reducing mining rewards to fund this, which may or may not be the case - and would make it hard to build support among miners.

On the other hand, of course, it would mean zero additional inflation which some people would clearly prefer.

We should be careful not to make an indication either way, for now, since we're starting with zero reward for now (we must make this absolutely clear, it's just a commitment mechanism). Longer-term, as we figure out the economics, governance, etc. I suspect we may want to go with absolute rather than relative rewards, but we have time to figure that out.

owocki commented 5 years ago

would make it hard to build support among miners.

do miners need to support this, or stakers? 🤔

We should be careful not to make an indication either way

Should I edit the EIPs thread to be ambiguous?

lrettig commented 5 years ago

do miners need to support this, or stakers?

Miners at first. I'm targeting this at Ethereum 1.x. Targeting Eth2 is a separate conversation, but we need to start with 1x for now. Of course we need to factor staking and Eth2 into the economics as well.

Should I edit the EIPs thread to be ambiguous?

Not sure where you mean exactly. I do think we should be ambiguous for now--and, again, reiterate that EIP1789 does not capture any rewards at all. We'd need another EIP to do that.

GregTheGreek commented 5 years ago

Re: 1.x vs 2.x ...

We should definitely make the push for 1.x first, if we get the community to back this then it will be much simpler in 2.0.

Not sure where you mean exactly. I do think we should be ambiguous for now--and, again, reiterate that EIP1789 does not capture any rewards at all. We'd need another EIP to do that.

I agree with this, introducing EIP1789 without a reward is probably the best course of action.