The Ethereum group has been locked in battle this week over a controversial change to its mining algorithm known as ProgPoW. If applied it might trigger a extremely contentious exhausting fork and two variations of ETH and associated tokens.
The mining algorithm change was unexpectedly accredited in the latest builders’ name final week. This has infected the broader Ethereum group which has spent the previous week discussing the implications of the change.
Programmatic proof-of-work, or ProgPoW, is a consensus algorithm designed to cut back the benefit of high-performance ASIC mining {hardware}.
Based on a medium delving into the ProgPow, proof-of-work mining has historically taken a set algorithm and modified the {hardware} to be ‘environment friendly’ at executing the algorithm. ProgPoW places this paradigm in reverse by taking the {hardware} and modifying the algorithm to match it.
The mechanism would favor miners utilizing general-purpose GPUs (graphics processors), with the purpose of avoiding centralization from ASIC dominated mining farms.
Whereas the intentions seem useful for the community, the speedy approval of it by core builders together with Vitalik Buterin, has paradoxically led to centralization calls from the broader group.
Crypto investor and DeFi specialist Ryan Sean Adams polled the Ethereum group on the contentious implementation and resultant exhausting fork.
ProgPow is contentious
Each #YesProgPow & #NoProgPow now agree its implementation will fork Ethereum
Two chains
Two Dais, two Makers, two Compounds, duplicates of each token on Ethereum
Ball within the court docket of the implementors to resolve
Is ProgPoW value forking over?
— Ryan Sean Adams – rsa.eth (@RyanSAdams) February 27, 2020
An awesome 80% of respondents voted in opposition to it which aligns with outcomes from other polls carried out earlier.
Main DeFi Implications
The Defiant’s Camila Russo has highlighted the professionals and cons of the choice and elaborated on the affect it would have on decentralized finance.
On the plus aspect it reduces mining centralization and will increase the variety of miners in a position to work on the community. It additionally improves safety by decreasing incentives to assault the community by dropping dependence on ASIC {hardware} which is community particular.
On the damaging aspect there may be not sufficient assist for ProgPoW to warrant a tough fork. There’s additionally concern that Ethereum governance was captured by those that have a vested curiosity in favoring GPU mining. Lastly the change is a large distraction from extra essential points such because the transition to proof of stake with ETH 2.0.
DeFi itself might break up with some tasks deciding on the brand new chain over the previous one which might dilute the whole ecosystem and make it extra fragmented.
Russo concludes that the choice could also be a take a look at on whether or not non-core Ethereum builders and the broader group can sway governance choices.
As RSA requested; would a tough fork leading to two blockchains, two Dais, two Makers, two Compounds, duplicates of each token on Ethereum actually be value it?
Is ProgPow improve for Ethereum? Add your views under.
