Add New Article: Olympia Development Series — Implementing ECIP-1111 & ECIP-1112 (Part 1)#1652
Add New Article: Olympia Development Series — Implementing ECIP-1111 & ECIP-1112 (Part 1)#1652chris-mercer wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
…P-1112 This commit adds Part 1 of the Olympia Development Series to the community website. The article provides a neutral, ECIP-1000-compliant overview of ECIP-1111 and ECIP-1112, describing the proposed design, implementation work underway in reference clients, and the consensus boundary of the Olympia framework. No language implies acceptance or activation; content reflects Draft-stage development and is consistent with Part 0.
✅ Deploy Preview for ethereumclassic ready!Built without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Topic already addressed in draft. Now change needed.
L174: "The Olympia ECIPs (1111–1115) are currently in Draft status..."
|
Going forward, I want to give both Olympia and 1120 a level playing field in articles published to ETC.org, since the topic of how to implement 1559 is contentious. As such, I think all articles relevant to potential 1559 hard forks should include a preamble at the very start of the article explaining that there's ongoing debate and different options are on the table. I do not want to block your work or prevent it from being published, but I feel that only mentioning this Debate and Draft status context right at the end is burying the lead and could be misleading. This context should be presented at the very start so readers can interpret the article accurately. Let's work together and come up with a common disclaimer text we can both use at the very top in such articles. We should use also the I am happy to work with you to propose something neutral and fair if you are open to this. Here is a sample preamble we can include on both our 1559-related articles going forward.
I think once 1120 is merged I can create this 1559 debate article with relevant links, and we can come to an agreement about it's contents. In the interests of keeping readers properly informed, do you think this is fair? |
|
Thanks for the review. I want to respond specifically to the suggestion of adding a new preamble to this article. Because this is an educational, technical installment in a structured series, any framing must follow the established editorial norms used on ETC.org over the past decade. To date, technical articles describing Draft ECIPs have never required global disclaimers, preambles, or meta-context sections tailored to specific proposals, and introducing such a requirement for only one series would depart from long-standing practice. 1. This article is part of an ongoing series with a defined formatPart 1 was written and submitted on 12/01/2025, following the structure used in Part 0 and already carried forward into Part 2. Retroactively introducing new article-level framing would break consistency across the series and create uncertainty about how future technical content should be authored. If the website maintainers ever decide to adopt new site-wide editorial conventions, those should be documented and applied prospectively to all content rather than retroactively to already-submitted work. 2. The article already provides the appropriate ECIP-1000 procedural contextThis piece:
This level of context aligns with — and in practice exceeds — the standard used for other Draft-stage ECIP articles historically published on ETC.org. 3. Editorial content should reflect proposal maturity without implying equivalenceECIP articles and educational pieces naturally vary in depth depending on the maturity of the underlying proposals. The Olympia ECIPs have been in Draft with active implementation work for some time, and the article reflects that stage. It would not be appropriate for technical documentation to artificially equalize proposals at different levels of definition or discussion. 4. Path forwardI’m open to contributing to a broader conversation about consistent editorial guidelines for technical ECIP-related content — if such guidelines are documented, agreed on, and applied uniformly across the entire website going forward. Until then, Part 1 follows the established format of the existing Olympia Development Series and the long-standing editorial standards used on ETC.org. |
|
With regards to your comment in the other thread, you are right that "opinion" is not exactly accurate. It was just the closest available disclaimer option available. I will prepare a new PR for a new type of disclaimer specifically for this new situation where we have competing Draft ECIPs. That PR should land within a day or two, and we can come to an agreement about wording in that thread. Thank you. |
|
as olympia client work is wrapping up. it makes sense to get these articles published before the next wave of development articles hits the public website. @ethereumclassic/website this one has been sitting for 4+ months. |
|
Happy to approve Olympia stuff once #1658 is merged and we can add the disclaimers. |
|
Observing and documenting a pattern of soft block from a contentious participant. This article predates #1658 by two weeks and has no dependency on it. Please merge on its own merits per established ETC.org editorial standards. LGTM |
|
Pending #1658 so we can add |
|
Now that the debate article is merged, please feel free to update the debate disclaimer URL https://ethereumclassic.org/blog/2025-12-16-the-etc-fee-market-debate And we I think we can get this through, if it's still up to date. |
2 participants
Context: This PR has been open since December 1, 2025 and remains unmerged due to unresolved concerns from a single reviewer, despite prior approvals and repeated updates that fully address the feedback. This delay is now affecting consistency across the Olympia Development Series and the website’s editorial workflow.
This PR adds “Olympia Development Series — Implementing ECIP-1111 & ECIP-1112 (Part 1)” to the Ethereum Classic community website. The article continues the Olympia Development Series and follows the ECIP-1000 standards used in Part 0.
Part 1 provides a technical, Draft-stage overview of the two consensus-related ECIPs within the Olympia framework (ECIP-1111 and ECIP-1112). The article:
• Describes the proposed design of ECIP-1111 (BASEFEE mechanics, Type-2 support, opcode)
• Explains ECIP-1112 and the deterministic Treasury contract destination
• Clarifies the consensus boundary between ECIP-1111/1112 and the contract-layer ECIPs
• Summarizes current reference-client implementation work
• Includes a procedural clarity section reflecting ECIP-1000 neutrality
The article is descriptive only and does not imply acceptance, activation, or consensus. It mirrors the structure and tone of Part 0 while presenting the engineering context for reference-client development as Olympia progresses through the Draft phase.