Magic Eden: Will this controversial move be a hit or a miss? Assessing… (

Magic Eden, the biggest NFT marketplace on Solana [SOL], with a monthly trading volume of over $87 million, announced its decision to implement an optional royalties structure on its platform. With this, buyers of NFTs on Magic Eden reserve the right to determine how much they wish to pay as royalties to the creators of […]

Visit us at


“Controversial Embers Zippin Elon Musk Tweets, ‘Bitcoin Old Wounds’ Rescue” (

Visit us at


Selected Links | Understand the Ethereum EIP-1559 proposal, why is it controversial? (

EIP-1559, considered to be one of the most noteworthy improvement proposals of Ethereum, has been controversial for two years after its birth. When the developers proposed to add it to the Ethereum London upgrade, the debate became more intense and even raised concerns about the Ethereum fork. Proponents believe that it can improve the user experience of Ethereum, while opponents believe that it is merely collecting taxes from miners and users.

EIP-1559 attempts to use the “basic fee + tip” model to replace the fee mechanism of Ethereum’s current bidding model, which concerns every user of the Ethereum ecosystem. What exactly is EIP-1559? What impact will it have on Ethereum and the entire encryption ecosystem? Smart researchers in the Ethereum community have already expressed their views, and we might as well find our own answers from their discussions.

What is EIP -1559 that is hotly discussed in the community?

“In- depth interpretation of Ethereum’s major hotly discussed proposal EIP 1559: user experience, slack mechanism and security, etc.
One of the biggest problems with the Ethereum rate mechanism is cost estimation. EIP 1559 attempts to solve this problem by making all transactions pay the same rate as possible.

“The EIP-1559 proposal will cause Ethereum to fork? In fact, the miners’ motives are not high
The forking is to prevent EIP-1559 and continue to maintain high fee rewards, but the newly forked chain obviously cannot retain DeFi, so where does the fee come from?

How will EIP-1559 affect the Ethereum ecosystem? Analysis from the perspective of miners, users and investors
EIP-1559 improves the usability of the Ethereum network and weakens the miners’ transaction packaging revenue.

Supporter’s point of view

View: The Ethereum Mining Union accepted the EIP-1559 proposal, why?
The reason is simple. Compared with protesting against the long-term loss of their own income caused by the upgrade of EIP-1559, miners are better off cooperating with users to promote its implementation.

Vitalik Buterin: Why don’t I worry about EIP-1559 variable block capacity
Vitalik Buterin believes that EIP-1559 does not pose a higher risk to the client than the fixed gas limit mechanism.

Why does Vitalik Buterin support EIP-1559? What does it do for Ethereum?
EIP-1559 cannot reduce network congestion, but it can reduce the need for users to intervene in transactions and is more economical.

EIP-1559 is not to reduce transaction fees, understand its design goals
EIP-1559 is to achieve better user experience and network security.


View: The hotly discussed EIP-1559 is just a tax and cannot reduce the gas price
The Ethereum fee improvement proposal EIP-1559 can neither make the transaction fee more predictable nor reduce the gas price, so it cannot be said that it can create a better user experience.

View: Ethereum miners will not accept EIP-1559, this is the reason
None of the critics of 1559 sincerely hope that Ethereum will fork; those who support 1559, more often talk about the fork, which means “forgive me or dare”.

A Jian: Why am I opposed to the Ethereum EIP-1559 proposal?
In March 2019, some people in the Ethereum community discussed the issue of Ethereum fee. Eric Conner proposed EIP-1599, believing that this proposal can “fix” many problems in the current Ethereum fee market. This article is Ajian’s economic analysis of EIP-1599. He believes that the proposal will only increase the fees that users pay for transactions, because not only miners ask for money, but the agreement also collects taxes from users.

What kind of “recommendation” is EIP-1559, listen to the analysis of the members of the Ethereum community
Recently, some people in the community discussed the issue of Ethereum handling fees. Eric Conner proposed an EIP-1599, believing that this proposal can “fix” many problems in the current Ethereum fee market. This article is A Jian’s economic analysis of EIP-1599.

Filecoin’s EIP-1559 practice

Juan Benet Analysis of Filecoin’s EIP-1559 Practice and Planning
Juan Benet, the founder of Filecoin, shared the principles of EIP-1559, the problems and improvements encountered in Filecoin practice.

Analysis of Filecoin transfer fee mechanism: Why use EIP-1559 fee standard?
Whether EIP-1559 can solve the problem of network congestion remains to be tested.

Disclaimer: As a blockchain information platform, the articles published on this site only represent the author’s personal views and have nothing to do with ChainNews’ position. The information, opinions, etc. in the article are for reference only, and are not intended as or regarded as actual investment advice.


After the launch of Ethereum 2.0, this question surfaced: Will the controversial EIP1559 trigger a fork? (

Compilation: Free and easy @巴比特

Original title: Will EIP1559 cause Ethereum to fork?

EIP1559 as a fee improvement proposal has caused huge controversy in the Ethereum community. People like Ethereum co-founder Vitalik and others support the introduction of EIP 1559 in Ethereum as soon as possible, while communities like miners have shown strong opposition, such as .

In this regard, Tim Roughgarden, a computer science professor from Columbia University, conducted a more objective economic analysis of EIP 1559. He also pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal. Despite this, there are still large miner communities and development communities. Opinions are divided.

What is EIP 1559? Read these articles:

Today, after Tim Roughgarden released the EIP 1559 economic analysis report, Vitalik, who supported the EIP 1559 proposal, commented:


“Tim Roughgarden just released the long-awaited EIP 1559 review report! Let’s work hard to get this important economic upgrade into Ethereum soon.”

So what exactly does Professor Tim Roughgarden’s analysis report say? The following are the 10 conclusions published on twitter (readers who are interested in reading the full 58-page report can read here:

  1. There is no transaction fee mechanism (including EIP-1559 and other mechanisms) that can greatly reduce the average transaction fee. The persistently high transaction fee is a scalability issue, not a mechanism design issue.
  2. EIP-1559 can reduce the difference in transaction fees and the delay experienced by some users through the flexibility of variable size blocks.
  3. EIP-1559 can improve the user experience through the simple cost estimation of the “best price” outside the period of rapid demand growth (but when there is a rapid increase in demand, the user experience cannot be improved).
  4. Under the EIP-1559 rule, the short-term incentives for miners to implement the agreement as expected are as strong as the “first price auction” mechanism.
  5. Under the EIP-1559 rule, the game-theoretic obstacles to double-spending attacks, censorship attacks, denial of service (DoS) attacks, and long-term revenue maximization strategies (such as basic fee manipulation) seem to be as strong as under the first price auction mechanism.
  6. EIP-1559 can at least moderately reduce the ETH inflation rate by burning transaction fees.
  7. It is easy to estimate costs and burn costs. These two seemingly orthogonal goals are inseparable due to the threat of off-chain agreements.
  8. Alternative designs include paying basic fee income to miners in future blocks instead of burning them, and replacing variable user-specified tip fees with fixed hard-coded tip fees .
  9. The basic fee update rules for EIP-1559 are somewhat arbitrary and should be adjusted over time.
  10. Variable-size blocks will trigger new, but expensive attack vectors: that is, overwhelming the network through a series of blocks of the largest size.

It also concluded:

Can EIP-1559 improve the current transaction fee mechanism of Ethereum? The biggest potential benefits of this proposal are:

(1) Simple cost estimation can be achieved outside the period of rapid demand growth; (2) Due to the increased flexibility of block size, the difference in transaction costs is small; (3) Protocol deviations and off-chain agreements Game theory robustness; and (4) Reduce inflation due to burning costs.

The main risk of implementing EIP-1559 is just like the problems caused by other major Ethereum changes: implementation errors, or forks caused by some participants’ refusal to change.

In addition, it will also bring additional complexity to the consensus layer, because every time the network is upgraded, other parameters must be adjusted and unpredictable downstream consequences. The additional risk peculiar to EIP-1559 also includes the possible hostile attitude of miners (due to burning transaction fees, they will lose income). The other is that variable block size will bring new attack vectors, although it will be very expensive.

People will hold different opinions on whether the benefits of adopting EIP-1559 are enough to exceed the risks it may bring. Those who insist that “the original fee market rules have no major problems” may be more willing to stick to the status quo. For those who believe that the consensus layer innovation should continue to be the central part of the future of Ethereum, the view that supports EIP-1559 is very Strong.

The translator personally believes that the controversy of EIP-1559 may be no less than Bitcoin block expansion. If it is not handled properly, it may cause a new fork.


Coinbase hemorrhages employees following controversial culture stance (

After adjustments to company policies, popular U.S.-based crypto exchange Coinbase has seen backlash from employees who disagreed with the changes. 

Coinbase received national attention for a recent change to its policies, which required employees to avoid political and social distractions, and instead focus on its core mission of building “an open financial system for the world”. Multiple commentators, including Jack Dorsey of Twitter, found the new direction to be at odds with the cryptocurrency industry’s values.

“We subsequently decided to make a generous exit package available to any employee who didn’t feel they could be on board with this direction,” Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said in a blog post on Oct. 8.

Armstrong’s post stated that 60 of the exchange’s staffers intend to depart from the company, equivalent to approximately 5% of the firm’s workforce. Additional workers have expressed interest in leaving as well, he said

The CEO said that despite concerns over the cultural shift disproportionately affecting the company’s “under-represented minority population”, people from such groups have not taken the severance package in disproportionate numbers.

In his clarifications to staff, Armstrong noted that employees should not have to pretend that politics don’t exist, and that crypto is an inherently political industry. He also saidthat “Yes, we are ok being political about this one particular area because it relates to our mission.”

In explaining how to know what is political, Armstrong declared that “We recognize it’s a blurry line, and ask that employees use good judgement. Our goal is not to look for violations, but rather to support employees in adapting to these clarified expectations.”

UPDATE Oct. 8, 18:12 UTC: This article has been updated with additional details. 

Go to Source

Image Credit: Refer to Source
Author: Refer to Source Cointelegraph By Benjamin Pirus


Controversial new proposal would forgive ‘slashed’ Polkadot validator (

Polkadot (DOT) validator Web3Italy has been “slashed” and “chilled” after going offline for 14 hours on Aug. 10 and 11.

This means that the validator has lost their staked tokens and been temporarily kicked from the network, respectively.

Web3Italy went offline at the same time that numerous other Web3 Foundation validators went offline resulting in the network taking action against the entire group. Web3 Foundation technical educator Bruno Skvorc said the act of being offline alone was not a “slashable offense,” but “being offline with a bunch of others is,” adding:

“This validator was offline when a bigger set of validators failed, all of which for slashed and aren’t being forgiven. This validator was collateral damage.”

According to Polkadot’s documentation, when an individual validator is “offline for an entire epoch” (4 hours), the offending party will be chilled, — removing them temporarily from the active validator set and disqualifying them for re-election in the next round only. It further specifies that this offense is the lowest class (level one), and will not result in any slashing of their stake.

Despite this specification, Web3Italy’s offense was classed as the highest level (level four), specified as “misconduct that poses a serious security or monetary risk to the system, or mass collusion.” The punishment for this level of offense will see the offending parties chilled and all or most of their stake slashed.

However, a controversial motion has been proposed which would forgive the validator and cancel their slash.

The motion states that the incident was “most likely related to an issue with software/hardware,” indicating that the incident was not malicious. It also outlined that the offense would probably have been classed as level one had it not been for the other offending but ‘unrelated’ validators. These two conclusions were the basis for the motion.

Computer scientist Ali Atiia suggested that reinstating the offending validator’s stake sets a dangerous precedent for future malicious actions:

Skvorc from Web3 Foundation said that he would vote against the motion, with many other Twitter users including Deribit Insights researcher Hasu sharing their disapproval of the motion, and concern should it pass:

Skvorc from Web3 Foundation said that he would vote against the motion, with many other Twitter users including Deribit Insights researcher Hasu sharing their disapproval of the motion, and concern should it pass:

“What a terrible idea. Poor precedent for @Polkadot if this passes, but doesnt seem likely.”

Emin Gün Sirer, CEO of the blockchain platform Avalanche, suggested that the whole concept of slashing is flawed, adding that he “believes financial technologies have to be calming and predictable.”

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin thought otherwise, stating that “slashing is important.” The problem, Buterin suggested, lies in the degree of punishment for 14 hours of inactivity, comparing it to Ethereum 2.0 in which only 0.05% of the offender’s balance would be affected by the same period of inactivity.

It is still unclear whether the motion will pass and Web3Italy’s stake will be reinstated.

Go to Source

Image Credit: Refer to Source
Author: Refer to Source Cointelegraph By Joshua Mapperson