The Ethereum network will be undergoing a scheduled upgrade at block number 9,069,000, which is predicted to occur on Saturday, December 7, 2019. The exact date is subject to change due to variable block times and timezones. Please upgrade your node before Sunday, December 1, 2019 to account for the...
Nothing really, these are minor upgrades. Most of the benefits of the upgrades bundled in this hard fork are 1) certain barriers to creating certain Layer 2 scaling solutions are now removed and 2) gas costs have been re-calculated to more accurately reflect how much computation is required.
The `-alpine` and `ubuntu` docker images were discontinued a long time ago, as deprecated in January 2018(!). All images now are based on alpine and are updated regularly https://hub.docker.com/r/ethereum/client-go/tags
Istanbul is just opcode repricing mostly.
Optimistic rollups are not layer-1, so they are developed independently from Istanbul. But they do become cheaper (read: more TPS) due to the opcode repricing.
How do they decide these things? I mean logistically. Does someone make a proposal and everyone votes on it? Does it all happen on github or something. Do the miners vote? How does that work? I’m so curious about building consensus across a distributed network. Is it just like ‘well 51% of the network has downloaded this new chunk of code, so start the clock’?
1) The users have requirements,
2) Some one writes up a proposal
3) Various stakeholders discuss
4) The (core) devs of 7 clients weigh in on whether it's technically acceptable and build & release it
5) The miners then decide if the upgrade is worth their mining power.
If you're talking about who has the biggest power to prevent changes from happening, then yes, it's probably those various client devs, because without code, there is no change.
The problem is that (1) can be vetoed for any reason by core developers, (2) can be vetoed for any reason by core developers, (3) the core developers are the only stakeholders that discuss these things, (4) the core developers also only build the things they want to build (not just what's technically feasible), and (5) the miners don't really have any say (as both issuance reductions would be sufficient to prove).
So, again, it all reduces to "the core devs decide everything."
Because at the end of the day, no one else has any real amount of power against them, and they're the only ones that decide what goes into a client and what the defaults are. Sure, you can "fork your own blockchain" or whatever bullshit excuse people always throw out, but the reality is that all it takes is any one of them to throw shade on said fork for it to die.
Which equals no power against them.
You can always vote with your feet and trade your eth, there are hundreds of competing coins. No one is forcing anything on you. You might like dash with their masternode voting style of governance or eos - very formal charter and there's elections, much less wishy washy. It's worth noting those governance styles do have their downsides...
Out of curiosity, what feature was /was not included you disagree on?
Sure, I could vote with my feet. But that only helps me, not the hundreds of other people who are being fed this bullshit about decentralization where none exists, and who have neither the time, nor energy, not ability to understand why it's bullshit.
[This might help, though](https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm).
As far as features? The DAO bailout, for one. That was 100% for Papa Joe, the core devs, and their VC friends, but they'll lie to hell and back about it because they know they have plausible deniability on their side 😉
But also every other feature intended to help those who already have the most keep it. Like issuance reductions. Refusal of ProgPoW.
I really could go on.
... I am not so sure most other crypto styles of governance would've had different outcomes than what we have now, especially the dao one. Ethereum's governance is probably the least who has the most money has the most votes of any coin, at least for now, but maybe that's your issue?
I think a set of core devs who are unwilling to compromise on some *very* basic values would have made some very different decisions along the way.
The choice to abuse defaults to obtain the outcome they want is just that: an abuse of power.
It had nothing to do with how people voted on the issue. Just look at ProgPow, which has nearly unanimous support in all places it has been voted on... And yet remains stonewalled by the same devs who are quick to use the "broad community support" lever when it suits them.
You really should read that link 🙃 it's not like any of this is new
I won’t respond further, so there’s no reason for you to respond. But this is silly. All you have to do, is become a core dev yourself and present better arguments. The core dev calls are open to everyone. Join and add you voice.
If miners decided now, what will the process be in POS? Will stakers be able to stake to various forks?
SouptacularEthereum Foundation - Hudson Jameson3 weeks ago
Good question! From a people perspective there are a few coordination channels where community members meet up to decide on what EIPs are going into a future hard fork. Ethereum Magicians forum is one of them, Gitter chat rooms are another. There is a bi-weekly live streamed videocall meeting of the Ethereum "core developers" across 7 different Ethereum clients who make decisions about what goes into the next upgrade and other protocol/low level ethereum topics. Those calls are live streamed, recorded, and extensive notes/transcripts taken. It can be found here: [https://github.com/ethereum/pm](https://github.com/ethereum/pm)/
Agendas for the meetings are here: [https://github.com/ethereum/pm/issues](https://github.com/ethereum/pm/issues)
On a technical level a "block number" is chosen for the network upgrade. Using the difficulty of the blockchain at the time and the time between different blocks we are able to roughly calculate when the upgrade should happen +-3 days. The block number is chosen in the core developer chat channel where we throw around some numbers until rough consensus is achieved.
Fun fact: The ethereum testnet block numbers are all palindromes and the Ethereum mainnet block numbers usually include a lot of 0's (see: https://twitter.com/hudsonjameson/status/1196743624429621248?s=20).
Hope that answered it!
Thanks for directions to the rabbit hole! I have emerged both smarter and dumber than when I entered. I suppose that I expected some sort of clever mathematical participation-weighted democracy. Seems more like the way Jon Snow got voted King of the North. Someone yells it, and if enough people join the chant then bobs your uncle.
>I have emerged both smarter and dumber than when I entered.
Lol, yeah, that describes quite well how I felt when I tried to research the topic. That's also the reason I didn't even want to try to answer the question myself.
While it only takes a bit to setup SSL, and encryption is important, imo it's not entirely neccessary for a simple site with just text (or data that simply doesn't need to be encrypted). I imagine the dev just doesn't give a shit, and was focused on more important things. Nerds work ethic are not all equal, albeit chaotic, it mostly results in something beautiful.
If you're making something that you're trying to inspire confidence in, ssl is important. Browsers are getting more and more aggressive about telling you that a page is insecure and more casual users who don't know what that actually means will be turned off.
But ya I get it.