search

ethereumclassic / ECIPs

https://ecips.ethereumclassic.org
82 stars 61 forks source link

CHAINID=0 ; ECIP-1090 #317

Closed MGiuseppi closed 4 years ago

MGiuseppi commented 4 years ago

Use CHAINID=0

MGiuseppi commented 4 years ago

Or Pi.

I would much rather it be Pi, but imagine the hardware is not yet there.

Edit: while my preference is for a with concurrent hashing of π, I don't believe it is in etc's best interest to fight over this or delay further .

MGiuseppi commented 4 years ago

ChainID=0 accomplishes nothing but a marketing feat.

Edit: it does respect our heritage as the ones who withstood the DAO attack.

ChainID=π on the other hand, will permanently keep the CHAINID capped only by our technical's speed. This secures the network - and our identity.

MGiuseppi commented 4 years ago

Consciousness is state that exists only in the present.

If we set chainID=π, our chainID will also serve as a unique principle on our blockchain and one that is perpetually verifying its identity.

It would appear to the general user, like a watermark.

Running this universally recognized hash of π constantly in our ChainID slot will make etc immediately recognizable and universally appealing, not to mention more secure.

q9f commented 4 years ago

0 is not possible, https://github.com/openethereum/openethereum/issues/8345#issuecomment-429956249

Edit, apparently, open ethereum does support 0, https://github.com/openethereum/openethereum/pull/9792

Don't know about the other clients.

MGiuseppi commented 4 years ago

Glad to see zero is possible:

I doubt many will doubt the incredible ramifications that can come from using chainID=π to identify a network.

If we change the current chainID=(null) at all, contracts will be broken.

Use chainID=π to approach all lost contracts:

By utilizing an asymptotic approach to the chainID, we at pay homage to our lost immutability and gain the watermark of Pi.

At most, we utilize chainID=π correctly and make this the perpetual definition of our chain – constantly circling the most recent computed understanding of π.

MGiuseppi commented 4 years ago

the math to use a non-integer chainID is more difficult and more suited for a new iteration of digital currency.

ETC should adopt chainID=0

gitr0n1n commented 4 years ago

This issue does not appear to have material support. Can we close this one? @TheEnthusiasticAs

TheEnthusiasticAs commented 4 years ago

@gitr0n1n It is better, if it will be closed / stay opened based on the opinions of the devs, e.g. of @q9f, @YazzyYaz

MGiuseppi commented 4 years ago

.....Of all the disheartening responses....

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 6:34 AM TheEnthusiasticAs notifications@github.com wrote:

@gitr0n1n https://github.com/gitr0n1n It is better, if it will be closed / stay opened based on the opinions of the devs, e.g. of @q9f https://github.com/q9f, @YazzyYaz https://github.com/YazzyYaz

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ethereumclassic/ECIPs/issues/317#issuecomment-644047797, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AO5WJSKZWYHSTHVS67MLX7DRWX2MRANCNFSM4MBH6W2Q .

YazzyYaz commented 4 years ago

I think we can keep this one open for the time being and request a formal proposal from @MGiuseppi.

If he can't provide an ECIP draft within an agreed-upon time, then we can close this issue. It can always be re-opened later, but there's nothing specific in our ECIP process about what to do with open issue tickets.

@MGiuseppi can we expect an ECIP draft from you on this? We can use link the discussion page of the draft to this page so more people can discuss your idea.

MGiuseppi commented 4 years ago

Please catch me up:

As I understood it, the phoenix hard fork would prevent any future modifications of chainID.

Since that has occurred, is there a reason to have a dissussion revolving around how to change it?

If there is still a way to implement change in chainID, I will devote some attention to it.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 4:51 PM Yaz Khoury notifications@github.com wrote:

I think we can keep this one open for the time being and request a formal proposal from @MGiuseppi https://github.com/MGiuseppi.

If he can't provide an ECIP draft within an agreed-upon time, then we can close this issue. It can always be re-opened later, but there's nothing specific in our ECIP process about what to do with open issue tickets.

@MGiuseppi https://github.com/MGiuseppi can we expect an ECIP draft from you on this? We can use link the discussion page of the draft to this page so more people can discuss your idea.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ethereumclassic/ECIPs/issues/317#issuecomment-644379859, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AO5WJSOTDBXIEFO72435ZBTRW2CARANCNFSM4MBH6W2Q .

q9f commented 4 years ago

ref #316