en
Back to the list

Ethereum [ETH] ProgPow Carbon Vote signal will shut down at block number 7504000

source-logo  ambcrypto.com 02 April 2019 00:30, UTC

During the recent Ethereum core devs meeting, the team discussed the roadmap, ethereum improvement protocol, Istanbul hardfork, ProgPow, client and research updates. The team also reached a consensus on ProgPow, client updates and research updates.

On ProgPow, there were two important developments, namely carbon vote update and audit update. Carbon vote was introduced by the Ethereum team to determine whether Ethereum token holders wanted to change from the current Proof-of-Work algorithm to an ASIC-resistant one. This decision was made after several voices, both for and against its implementation, were raised. According to the recent decision, this vote would come to an end on block number 7504000, in approximately a little over 10 days.

The Reddit summary on ProgPow Carbon vote read,

“The [ProgPoW Carbon Vote] signal will be shutting down in 13 days from today. Everyone that wishes to vote will need to do so before this date and ensure they leave their ETH in the address they voted from until after block number 7504000, as per [Lane’s tweet].”

Lane Rettig, an Ethereum core developer, explained that ether would need to be in the carbon vote address up to and including when the particular block happens, for the vote to be counted. Subsequently, the vote would still be considered valid even if the coins are moved.

At press time, the percentage of community members in favour of ProgPow implementation was recorded to be 93.6042%, while the rest were against its implementation.

On the audit side of ProgPow, the Ethereum Cat Herders successfully managed to pool in over 15,000 DAI out of the total cap of 50,000 DAI.

Another core developer, Ameen Soleimani, asked for a clarification on an aspect pertaining to ProgPow. The developer asked whether there was a scenario where the audit does not get funded, but the team would still implement ProgPow. To this, Hudson Jameson responded by saying that there was indeed a scenario where this could happen.

The decision on client and research update was,

“[client/ research] will not provide generic verbal updates in the meeting but should provide an update in the comments in the agenda. If there are any questions or anything specific to discuss a space will be left to do so.”

ambcrypto.com