Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

EIP-1559 Implementers' Call #3 #184

Closed
timbeiko opened this issue Jun 15, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

EIP-1559 Implementers' Call #3 #184

timbeiko opened this issue Jun 15, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@timbeiko
Copy link
Collaborator

timbeiko commented Jun 15, 2020

EIP-1559 Implementers' Call 3

The purpose of this call is for various teams/individuals working on aspects of EIP-1559 to discuss the implementation plan and next steps to move the EIP forward.

Agenda

@MicahZoltu
Copy link

I won't be able to make it but my vote is strongly against bundling the EIPs since 1559 makes sense and adds value on its own, and escalator makes sense and adds value on its own so there is no need to bundle them.

I would fully support having an escalator EIP that requires 1559 though, in which case I am moderately in favor of escalating the GAS_PREMIUM linearly over time with a plateau at FEECAP-BASEFEE. This would mean adding a PREMIUM_ESCALATION_START_BLOCK and PREMIUM_ESCALATION_END_BLOCK to the transaction.


It may be premature (seeing as how 2718 is still in DRAFT), but if EIP 2718: Typed Transaction Envelope makes it to final before 1559, then I think we should switch over to using it.

@timbeiko
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@timbeiko
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Relevant analysis on the Escalator algorithm published today: https://insights.deribit.com/market-research/analysis-of-eip-2593-escalator/

@timbeiko
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Transcript for the call: https://notes.ethereum.org/@afhGjrKfTKmksTOtqhB9RQ/SkN2TbfC8

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants