Reject ECIP-1093 "RandomX"

[q9f]

as per #333

closes #329

[mikeyb]

lgtm

[gitr0n1n]

Response from the ECIP-1093 Author.

My personal opinions on this broken consensus building process:
I was not informed that RandomX was on the chopping block. The Agenda for this call was still listed as "To be Determined". Also the chat regarding the agenda about an hour from the call time cited an unrecorded CDC call where this proposal was rejected due to "vocal opposition in the 8/20 CDC call" via @developerkevin in discord , but there is no transparency to this opposition. I suggest this ECIP be sent to Draft status for proper discussion time.

I had drafted the proposal and there was minimal community engagement with the recent flood of ECIPs due to the current unstable state of the network. After 21 days from drafting ECIP-1093, this decision to reject the proposal feels rushed to say the least. Additionally this decision cited an unrecorded meeting 14 days after drafting the proposal. This is hardly enough time to digest this proposal. I haven't directly heard/read opposition to this proposal or discussion at all since the ECIP is so new compared to other ECIPs that sat in the Draft status for years and were provided adequate time to digest the proposal material.

To me, this auto-rejection without adequate dicussion time seems similar to how ProgPoW ECIP-1070 was rushed through to rejection status by the pro-SHA3 participants (ETC Coop @bobsummerwill and @YazzyYaz).

Lastly, I later learned that other ECIP authors were contacted prior to the meeting regarding their attendance to the call, specifically @p3c-bot of ECIP-1049 by @q9f the call coordinator. I don't believe this proposal got a 'fair shake" due to the SHA3 agenda.

For these reasons: I recommend it be sent back to the Draft status so it is on the table for further review should a material opposition to SHA3 grow now that ECIP-1049 "SHA3" has been pushed through the process to Accepted status.

Should this be pushed to Reject status regardless of these facts presented above:
I reviewed the 8/28 CDC call and did not hear a champion present on the call: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W1l5krLPqI

I was not around the computer or in cell phone range to attend the CDC as I was out of cell service for an engagement that was scheduled months before the CDC call was scheduled. Due to being a believer of rough consensus and proper process, I have to accept the Reject status if other attending members in the ECIP process feel it is justified and this proposal got a "fair shake".

Should a material opposition to the SHA3 algorithm discussion form and participate in the formal ECIP process, I will champion to have this ECIP returned to Draft status from Rejected as I don't believe this philosophical conversation has been thoroughly discussioned as Charles of Input Output Global addressed in his criticism of the initial 8/20 2020 Q3 CDC meeting, the meeting that was not recorded for public consumption and is cited as the reason for this proposal to reject ECIP-1093:

https://youtu.be/F0lR_u7BVho?t=480

r0n1n

[gitr0n1n]

Please consider leaving this proposal in Draft status as it is my opinion as the author that it never got a fair shake in the ECIP process.

It was rushed through with minimal communication to vested parties. 14 days from inception to reject. Thank you.

There is no harm in leaving it in Draft status for adequate time for discussion. And should ECIP-1049 become contenious, this ECIP will be sitting in the Draft status as an option. If ECIP-1049 is implemented and accept by the network without contention, this proposal will likely be dated and could be rejected at that time. This is the most logical approach as the contra ECIP-1049 sat in draft status for over a year to let the community digest the implications of it.

[mikeyb]

Closing this to leave ECIP in Draft status per author request.

@gitr0n1n consider a Presentation when you feel this is more ready for consumption https://gist.github.com/mikeyb/f62bae32c66cd104010154881c8735cd

[gitr0n1n]

Closing this to leave ECIP in Draft status per author request.

@gitr0n1n consider a Presentation when you feel this is more ready for consumption https://gist.github.com/mikeyb/f62bae32c66cd104010154881c8735cd

Thank you @mikeyb. I appreciate the feedback and the return to Draft status.

[q9f]

I think leaving this in Draft status does not do any damage, so I will not escalate this further, but I will insist that this proposal was rejected. Otherwise, we will have yet another Wei Tang situation: willingly or unwillingly missing a call (or coming 1 hour late) that has been announced for several weeks with a public agenda and well-defined scope (mining algorithm & 51% attacks) and then questioning the outcome of a meeting with well over a couple of dozen attendees.

As I said, leaving this in Draft does not hurt anyone right now, and reiterating a rejected proposal in future is will within the scope of the ECIP process.

But, @gitr0n1n, please do me a favor, we have enough issues at hand. There is no reason to freak out or escalate or ping everyone you know. First thing to do in such a situation is reading the notes, listening to the call recording, seeking out participants for their opinion.

Lastly, I later learned that other ECIP authors were contacted prior to the meeting regarding their attendance to the call, specifically @p3c-bot of ECIP-1049 by @q9f the call coordinator. I don't believe this proposal got a 'fair shake" due to the SHA3 agenda.

I'm not sure if you missed both of the calls, but in the first of the two calls, there was an action item (among others, @developerkevin has a list somewhere) that was "reaching out to Alex". That has nothing to do with favor or not, I was responsible for this one action item. Others were responsible for other action items.

I was under the impression you are following the active developments here, so I failed to propose an action item "reach out to Ronin". It was just during the 2nd call that when I asked for you, that you were not around. And there is just so much I can do as organizer and moderator of a call. The announcement was on Github and the ticket was linked multiple times on Discord.

We had 85 people on the first call and slightly lower numbers on the second call. Please, don't say now you had no idea. Sorry.

[gitr0n1n]

No one is freaking out. I came back to find my proposal was rejected in swift motion. I read the information and accept it. Today I was asked to express my opinion in this thread via the ecip-core channel.

I have done everything that has been asked of me related to this new ECIP.

Regarding the CDC agenda, it is obvious these agendas were not clearly communicated to the public as many were left confused by not only the 8/20 meeting but the 8/28 meeting. I had no idea RandomX was on the chopping block. No idea at all. There was no 8/20 recording to review outside of some very vague bullet list. And the 8/28 meeting had silence regarding the topic.

Moving this prematurely to Reject status after 21 days from the moment it was drafted is irresponsible as a consensus coordinator.

[gitr0n1n]

I request this ECIP sit in Draft status due to the reasons stated above. The ECIP process for this is rushed. If you would prefer, you can put the ECIP in WIP status, as it in not even 4 weeks old and a proposal to change the consensus algorithm of the network.

[q9f]

Well, thanks for the honest feedback, I try to make less disaster next time.

Charles was attacking me for kindly cutting him off because he tried to hijack the call for his own agenda. I just defended the process and got the beating for it. It's easy to play down my role here, but in fact I defended the publicly crowdsourced agenda.

If you do believe there is an improvement to be made, please go ahead and help iterating the process. Blaming each other does not help Ethereum Classic at all. And I'm not doing this for myself, I'm doing this for Ethereum Classic.

[gitr0n1n]

Well, thanks for the honest feedback, I try to make less disaster next time.

This verbage was not feedback from me personally, but many others in the discord server. I was not present at the meeting to witness it and there was no recording for the CDC. So i cannot personally opine on the 8/20 meeting. However I did listen to Charles' video with constructive feedback of the meeting. This was reviewed as I tried to piece together what happened to my newly submitted ECIP proposal and why it was in Reject status since there is no documentation regarding this discussion on this ECIP.

If you do believe there is an improvement to be made, please go ahead and help iterating the process.

I am trying to improve the process with my feedback in this thread. As an author, you shot down my proposal prior to any constructive dialogue on the proposal. I'm left thinking, why did I even put the effort if some random person can censor ECIPs in this way?

Blaming each other does not help Ethereum Classic at all. And I'm not doing this for myself, I'm doing this for Ethereum Classic.

In my opinion, rushing newly drafted ECIPs is not productive for the Ethereum Classic ECIP process. ECIP-1043 and ECIP-1049 sat in the draft status for at least one year. This was a CPU algorithm change suggestion to compliment the GPU and ASIC discussion. It has merit and deserves better treatment.

Thanks for listening to the feedback.