Pinned post
Ryan Berckmans ⟠
Verified account This account is verified. Learn more@ryanberckmans
Ethereum community member and ETH investor
2.9K Following 31K Followers 16K Posts
Latest posts 5
The bad news on Glam's gas opcode repricing debacle is that we collectively fucked up the design, adequate diligence, and sufficient public communication for us to sooner come to correct consensus on the issue.
The good news imo is that we have learned a lot over the years about how to deal with these complex technical and political issues.
I believe that by, asap, greatly ramping up our publishing/writing/data sharing in public on this issue, and having open more lines of communication e.g. between app devs like @ameensol and @josephdelong and the core devs/researchers working on the issue, we will find a good/great solution on a reasonable timeline.
The #1 thing I learned today is that this gas introspection situation is a very serious issue that needs immediate remediation and way more sunlight.
Things are going amazingly for us-- no reason to let this slow down our growth to global ubiquity and/or our excellent community-of-communities cohesion we have been building. It's really begun to thrive in the past few months.
The good news imo is that we have learned a lot over the years about how to deal with these complex technical and political issues.
I believe that by, asap, greatly ramping up our publishing/writing/data sharing in public on this issue, and having open more lines of communication e.g. between app devs like @ameensol and @josephdelong and the core devs/researchers working on the issue, we will find a good/great solution on a reasonable timeline.
The #1 thing I learned today is that this gas introspection situation is a very serious issue that needs immediate remediation and way more sunlight.
Things are going amazingly for us-- no reason to let this slow down our growth to global ubiquity and/or our excellent community-of-communities cohesion we have been building. It's really begun to thrive in the past few months.
I'm not advocating to push forward recklessly. That would be stupid as everybody including me is well aware that ethereum's maximal reliability is our unique value proposition.
Many more people with more info than me need to write about this in public asap imo.
Currently I don't think it's clear to the community whether gas introspection behavior was ever one of our guarantees. I currently don't think it ever was or is.
Nor is it clear what the impact of guaranteeing it forever, or breaking it now for these contracts, would be.
Take my quoted post as a strong view weekly held, and a call for more sunlight on this issue. Not some Glam activation deathmarch :)
Many more people with more info than me need to write about this in public asap imo.
Currently I don't think it's clear to the community whether gas introspection behavior was ever one of our guarantees. I currently don't think it ever was or is.
Nor is it clear what the impact of guaranteeing it forever, or breaking it now for these contracts, would be.
Take my quoted post as a strong view weekly held, and a call for more sunlight on this issue. Not some Glam activation deathmarch :)
We should continue towards Glam activation asap.View quoted post on X
A lot of research went into Glam's strategy to increase opcode gas prices for state creation.
It seems fair to say that the timing of this debate is irrelevant as to its correctness or rightness for eth and our users... Yet, why did some of us (eg. quoted author who is an ef board member) only start looking in detail at Glam EIPs eg. after testnet forks started? This isn't a personal attack, it's an observation that there's a collective responsibility-- for OP, for me, for all of us-- to steward fork strategy at the right times in the process.
imo ethereum's commitments to apps do not extend to gas pricing, or to total ETH fee levels, or to USD fees. And also not to opcode pricing or gas introspection that depends on those prices. We guarantee maximally credibly neutral, maximally live access to the correct state transition function. Those guarantees imply that we always use a neutral pricing mechanism to clear congestion wherever possible. However, pricing opcodes can't use a neutral mechanism, we need to pick magic number opcode gas prices. Some of our best people researched this extensively and picked updated magic numbers, and that's something imo we should stick with now and continue our larger plans that are on track to grow to global ubiquity.
The good news and practical reality may be that the explosion of blockspace supply from 60M to 200M gas limit seems likely to absolutely crater the L1 gas price. It will take time for demand to grow to meet the new supply, including from net new entrants (eg. GENIUS and institutions), induced demand from lower prices, and the coming next gen of return-to-mainnet-type eth native apps.
By the time L1 blockspace demand catches up, we will be exploding supply again as we get closer to the full lean eth vision. That's eth's vision: postquantum and postAI ETH SoV, supported by ethereum's hypergrowing capacity, which is supported by best-in-class security and formal verification.
Looking back, it's unfortunate that we provided these affected contracts with a footgun that has put them in the situation where they were *able* to rely on fake guarantees that ethereum never promises (afaik, essentially just gas introspection). We're sorry.
imo it's time to roll forward on this. Let's do what we can in an appropriately scoped capacity for the affected contracts, then activate Glam asap, and continue our excellent progress towards global ubiquity.
We should continue towards Glam activation asap.
A lot of research went into Glam's strategy to increase opcode gas prices for state creation.
It seems fair to say that the timing of this debate is irrelevant as to its correctness or rightness for eth and our users... Yet, why did some of us (eg. quoted author who is an ef board member) only start looking in detail at Glam EIPs eg. after testnet forks started? This isn't a personal attack, it's an observation that there's a collective responsibility-- for OP, for me, for all of us-- to steward fork strategy at the right times in the process.
imo ethereum's commitments to apps do not extend to gas pricing, or to total ETH fee levels, or to USD fees. And also not to opcode pricing or gas introspection that depends on those prices. We guarantee maximally credibly neutral, maximally live access to the correct state transition function. Those guarantees imply that we always use a neutral pricing mechanism to clear congestion wherever possible. However, pricing opcodes can't use a neutral mechanism, we need to pick magic number opcode gas prices. Some of our best people researched this extensively and picked updated magic numbers, and that's something imo we should stick with now and continue our larger plans that are on track to grow to global ubiquity.
The good news and practical reality may be that the explosion of blockspace supply from 60M to 200M gas limit seems likely to absolutely crater the L1 gas price. It will take time for demand to grow to meet the new supply, including from net new entrants (eg. GENIUS and institutions), induced demand from lower prices, and the coming next gen of return-to-mainnet-type eth native apps.
By the time L1 blockspace demand catches up, we will be exploding supply again as we get closer to the full lean eth vision. That's eth's vision: postquantum and postAI ETH SoV, supported by ethereum's hypergrowing capacity, which is supported by best-in-class security and formal verification.
Looking back, it's unfortunate that we provided these affected contracts with a footgun that has put them in the situation where they were *able* to rely on fake guarantees that ethereum never promises (afaik, essentially just gas introspection). We're sorry.
imo it's time to roll forward on this. Let's do what we can in an appropriately scoped capacity for the affected contracts, then activate Glam asap, and continue our excellent progress towards global ubiquity.
A lot of research went into Glam's strategy to increase opcode gas prices for state creation.
It seems fair to say that the timing of this debate is irrelevant as to its correctness or rightness for eth and our users... Yet, why did some of us (eg. quoted author who is an ef board member) only start looking in detail at Glam EIPs eg. after testnet forks started? This isn't a personal attack, it's an observation that there's a collective responsibility-- for OP, for me, for all of us-- to steward fork strategy at the right times in the process.
imo ethereum's commitments to apps do not extend to gas pricing, or to total ETH fee levels, or to USD fees. And also not to opcode pricing or gas introspection that depends on those prices. We guarantee maximally credibly neutral, maximally live access to the correct state transition function. Those guarantees imply that we always use a neutral pricing mechanism to clear congestion wherever possible. However, pricing opcodes can't use a neutral mechanism, we need to pick magic number opcode gas prices. Some of our best people researched this extensively and picked updated magic numbers, and that's something imo we should stick with now and continue our larger plans that are on track to grow to global ubiquity.
The good news and practical reality may be that the explosion of blockspace supply from 60M to 200M gas limit seems likely to absolutely crater the L1 gas price. It will take time for demand to grow to meet the new supply, including from net new entrants (eg. GENIUS and institutions), induced demand from lower prices, and the coming next gen of return-to-mainnet-type eth native apps.
By the time L1 blockspace demand catches up, we will be exploding supply again as we get closer to the full lean eth vision. That's eth's vision: postquantum and postAI ETH SoV, supported by ethereum's hypergrowing capacity, which is supported by best-in-class security and formal verification.
Looking back, it's unfortunate that we provided these affected contracts with a footgun that has put them in the situation where they were *able* to rely on fake guarantees that ethereum never promises (afaik, essentially just gas introspection). We're sorry.
imo it's time to roll forward on this. Let's do what we can in an appropriately scoped capacity for the affected contracts, then activate Glam asap, and continue our excellent progress towards global ubiquity.
@me_jango @z0r0zzz @jchaskin22 well my pov is still the one i shared in the core dev's agenda 2 weeks (when nobody was yet talking about this lol): github.com/ethereum/pm/is…
imho Glamsterdam should not be shipped in its current form, period.View quoted post on X
For the first time since 2019, Ethereum will have Devcons back-to-back instead of every 2 years. Next year in Lisbon in mid Oct. Awesome
Devcon 9 next year in Lisbon, Portugal. They announced it like this.View quoted post on X
