Add Fee Market Debate Article#1658
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for ethereumclassic ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
✅ Deploy Preview for ethereumclassic ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
|
The preview build is failing due to timeout only, should be fine to merge. |
realcodywburns
left a comment
realcodywburns
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Neutral post, this is missing 1115 that is the middle ground. https://github.com/ethereumclassic/ECIPs/blob/master/_specs/ecip-1115.md
|
My bad, added 1115 to the article |
| tags: ["announcement", "development", "hardfork"] | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| The Ethereum Classic community stands at a crossroads. Two distinct proposals for implementing EIP-1559-style fee market mechanisms have emerged, each representing different philosophies about how ETC should evolve. Both paths offer compelling visions for the network's future, and the coming months will see the community work through these options together. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this would be a good place to set the context of the hardfork and the decision point in it. "Olympia" the hardfork contains several improvements (1121) one of them is 1559 and the potential treasury. an engaged informed community will help on the items with etc specific choice
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@realcodywburns is this still accurate? It seems 1121 is purely about non-controversial EIPs , as we discussed on the calls, and does not include 1111 or 1112
The olympia naming is causing a bit of confusion about whether it's necessarily including a treasury?
| tags: ["announcement", "development", "hardfork"] | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| The Ethereum Classic community stands at a crossroads. Two distinct proposals for implementing EIP-1559-style fee market mechanisms have emerged, each representing different philosophies about how ETC should evolve. Both paths offer compelling visions for the network's future, and the coming months will see the community work through these options together. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Two distinct proposals for implementing EIP-1559-style fee market mechanisms"
This is not factual. There are not multiple ways to implement EIP-1559. Please update.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How is this not true?
We have 1111 and 1120.
chris-mercer
left a comment
chris-mercer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@IstoraMandiri per your recent request, I reviewed. There are quite a bit of inaccuracies in here. I tried to do my best to clear up the logic for you. I hope it was helpful!
One big note with your effort this past few months: You're attempting to create a false "debate" narrative under the EIP-1559 umbrella. However, there doesn't appear to be a debate over 1559 at all. In fact there is overwhelming support for EIP-1559 and its generally a requirement for the EVM to advance and state up to date.
I agree. The debate isn't about whether we do 1559 or not (see the first paragraph) - it's about how it's implemented. Hence the Olympia vs 1120 framing. |
Great, I look forward to the rewrite, where this article would not be framed as a '1559 debate article' — but rather a debate on adding the L-curve into the protocol with no empirical evidence versus the more measured and secure ECIP-1115 approach. ECIP-1120 vs ECIP-1115 is the accurate framing. Please also address the technical inaccuracies flagged in the review comments. |
|
The article itself isn't framed as '1559 debate article' -- that's just the title of this PR. It's not accurate to frame the debate as 1115 vs 1120, since 1120 is an alternative to 1111-1115 , including the treasury. If you'd like to propose a different title for the article, please let me know. I had already addressed your review comments and am awaiting your response. |
|
Since the live question is not whether ETC can adopt a 1559-style fee market in principle, but how ETC should implement and justify it, Elysium is now material to all that. Elysium has been put forward in the ECIP process as an Olympia-aligned alternative. It retains the same EIP-1559 / BASEFEE modernization path, but routes BASEFEE to a deterministic Elysium revenue contract; companion drafts separate that protocol-owned sink from the intended downstream logtrees/logN settlement path. In that sense, Elysium is arguably a stronger justification for reconsidering 1559 on ETC than treasury accumulation alone, because it ties the new fee rail to an intended ETC-native productive path rather than funding plumbing by itself. Elysium Files: Web: https://logtrees.com/elysium/elysium.html ECIP-1110-ELY-FEE: ethereumclassic/ECIPs#568 
|
Adds disclaimer, expands Olympia ECIPs (1115-1119), adds ECIP-1121 as common ground, balances third-party links, emphasizes deliberation. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
@realcodywburns @chris-mercer @diega This article has been revised to address the feedback raised in this PR. Key changes:
Please review and let me know if there are remaining concerns. The goal is to present both sides fairly and let readers form their own conclusions. |
|
Checking in per request:
Separately, please stop adding people as authors of your words without their consent. Contributors shouldn't need to request removal from articles they didn't draft. Noting the pattern across many PRs and project resources @IstoraMandiri has access to. It's inappropriate behavior. Appreciate it. 👍🏻 |
|
1120 requires 1111 for 1559 and 3198 activation. the framing that this was a spontaneous separate proposal is wrong. 1120 remains a waste of everyone's time |
realcodywburns
left a comment
realcodywburns
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no direct objection. Comments in line remain true, 1120 requires components from 1111.
No reply in over 3 weeks, given right of reply, new version resolves framing issues.
3 of 4 maintainers want this published.
5 participants
This article provides neutral context for the ongoing EIP-1559 fee market discussion, covering both ECIP-1120 and the Olympia upgrade proposals.
Purpose: To serve as a shared reference that can be linked from future articles discussing either proposal via the
disclaimerLinkfield.Request: All listed authors (Cody Burns, Diego López León, Istora Mandiri, Chris Mercer) please review and confirm this represents a fair and balanced presentation of both approaches before merging.
Related: #1656
This PR is open to edits by authors should they wish to update the content.
@diega @IstoraMandiri @realcodywburns and @chris-mercer are listed as authors. I hope we can agree on joint authoring this statement, but understand should you wish to not be named as authors.