Key Takeaways
- The Ethereum community is divided over the proposed ProgPoW mining algorithm, which aims to achieve ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) resistance.
- ProgPoW was developed in 2018 to counter the efficiency of specialized mining hardware, favoring GPU mining to maintain decentralization.
- Opposition to ProgPoW often cites concerns about potential delays to the Ethereum 2.0 roadmap and implementation risks.
- Proponents argue that ASIC resistance aligns with Ethereum’s foundational principles of decentralization.
- The ongoing debate reflects a philosophical divergence on the evolution of Ethereum’s protocol and the importance of ASIC resistance.
The ProgPoW Debate: A Deep Dive
The Ethereum community is currently engaged in a significant discussion surrounding a proposed modification to its mining algorithm known as ProgPoW. This proposed change aims to render existing ASIC miners obsolete, thereby exclusively enabling mining operations via Graphics Processing Units (GPUs).
While the concept of ProgPoW was first introduced in 2018, it has experienced periods of both inactivity and intense scrutiny over the subsequent two years. The recent resurgence in debate was notably triggered by the seemingly abrupt reintroduction of ProgPoW into the Ethereum development roadmap. During a core developers’ call on February 21st, Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) 1057, which details the ProgPoW specification, was marked as accepted and final.
This decision swiftly prompted public dissent, culminating in the submission of EIP 2538 on February 25th. This proposal garnered signatures from stakeholders who formally expressed their opposition to the implementation of ProgPoW.
Kristy Leigh-Minehan, one of the original three members of the IfDefElse group responsible for developing ProgPoW, offered valuable insights into the algorithm’s intended purpose and the underlying reasons for its continued divisiveness. Representatives from the Ethereum Foundation declined to provide comment when contacted by Cointelegraph.
What Is ProgPoW?
ProgPoW, an acronym for Programmatic Proof of Work, is a mining algorithm meticulously engineered to maximize resistance against ASICs. ASICs are specialized hardware devices built solely for the purpose of mining cryptocurrencies, granting them a significant efficiency advantage over general-purpose hardware such as CPUs and GPUs.
Developing mining algorithms that can effectively maintain security against such highly specialized hardware has historically presented a considerable challenge. Ethereum’s current algorithm, Ethash, was also designed with ASIC resistance in mind; however, its effectiveness proved to be temporary. Minehan explained that the motivation behind her group’s work was primarily driven by early rumors concerning the development of Ethereum ASICs.
ProgPoW was born out of the ASIC resistance threads in March 2018. An Ethereum contributor called Pipermerriam posted EIP 958, which was an EIP to modify the mining algorithm of Ethereum to be ASIC resistant. This was triggered by the discovery of the E3 ASIC miner by Bitmain, which had been leaked on CNBC.
Although the Bitmain E3 ASIC was later understood to be a relatively rudimentary device, primarily comprising memory chips connected to Bitmain’s processing units, the drive for ASIC resistance gained substantial momentum. Proponents of ProgPoW assert that by making the manufacturing of ASICs for Ethereum more challenging, the network would achieve greater decentralization, with a broader and more distributed base of miners.
💡 In April 2018, a poll conducted by Vlad Zamfir, a researcher at the Ethereum Foundation, indicated that 57% of respondents favored a hard fork to maintain ASIC resistance. Around the same time, EIP 969 was proposed as a minor modification to Ethash intended to break existing ASICs. Minehan elaborated:
Those two EIPs, plus the constant discussion around ASIC resistance was what really spurred us — as IfDefElse — to start looking more into how would you go build a truly ASIC resistant algorithm.
Minehan further explained that ProgPoW operates by modifying Ethash in a way that utilizes the full processing capacity of a GPU chip. This approach is designed to counteract the strategy employed by ASIC manufacturers, which involves stripping away non-essential components from standard GPU designs. She noted:
The reason we do that is because currently when you go to build an ASIC, what you do is you strip away portions of a GPU. You basically say: ‘hey, here’s the reference code, here’s the GPU — which parts can we take away from the chip?’
Ethash initially attempted to mitigate this by maximizing GPU utilization. Minehan believes that ProgPoW introduces subtle yet crucial alterations to Ethash, addressing inefficiencies and potential vulnerabilities that the original Ethash designer might have overlooked, especially concerning aspects typical in GPU programming.
Historical Context and Opposition
Minehan observed that ProgPoW encountered immediate criticism due to concerns that it might delay the crucial Ethereum 2.0 transition. She stated:
A few people were against it initially, due to the pressure it would put on Casper’s transition and the Casper Finality Gadget — which, as many people know, is now completely off Ethereum 1.0’s roadmap.
However, she characterized the opposition in 2018 as relatively mild, considering that ASIC resistance was a significant community objective at the time. She recalled:
In 2018 there actually weren’t a lot of negative debates about ProgPoW. If you go back through the original EIPs, you’ll see a lot of positive discussion and over one thousand people voted on GitHub for research into ASIC resistance.
The landscape shifted dramatically in September 2018 when Linzhi Mining announced its intention to release a powerful Ethash ASIC. This announcement marked the beginning of what Minehan termed the Linzhi saga. Linzhi Mining openly and actively opposed ProgPoW, employing arguments that Minehan considered misleading, such as claims of their ability to design an ASIC specifically for ProgPoW.
Linzhi created a lot of damage — and I think a lot of the political stress — around ProgPoW […] They have been oddly quiet since I’ve resigned from Core Scientific — no release updates, nothing on their Telegram […] I think there were special interests [from Linzhi] involved [in the debate] at the time in 2019.
This controversy also fueled unsubstantiated rumors, which Minehan has refuted, suggesting that ProgPoW was developed by major GPU manufacturers AMD and Nvidia.
⚡ In early 2019, driven by this controversy, a community vote was organized via a dedicated website to gauge sentiment on ProgPoW. By the conclusion of the voting period in April 2019, over 93% of respondents, representing 2.93 million ETH, expressed support for ProgPoW. While the Ethereum core team had previously agreed to and subsequently reconsidered the proposal, it was eventually decided that ProgPoW would be implemented, contingent upon a thorough audit.
This marked the last significant development in the ProgPoW narrative until its seemingly sudden inclusion in the 2020 roadmap. Minehan explained this resurgence:
What had happened is ProgPoW had been scheduled for inclusion. It never actually fell off the EIP list and it passed its audits with, I would say, flying colours.
Renewed Debate and Shifting Sentiments
Minehan suggests that a significant portion of the current controversy can be attributed to the manner in which the news was communicated, a sentiment echoed by Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin. She clarified that ProgPoW is not yet definitively accepted, and the developer meeting’s intention was to establish a date for its potential inclusion.
Kain Warwick, founder of Synthetix and a signatory of the anti-ProgPoW proposal, shared his perspective. He highlighted a perceived communication gap between Ethereum’s application developers and its core developers. He stated:
There seems to be a disconnect between the people building on Ethereum and the core devs building Ethereum […] I think the anti-ProgPoW side feels that they were not informed and listened to and so are making a point. But philosophically, contentiousness itself is a strong enough argument to block an EIP — irrespective of the origin of that contentiousness.
While Minehan tentatively identified decentralized finance (DeFi) stakeholders as being aligned with the current anti-ProgPoW stance, Warwick proposed that this might be a matter of selection bias. He elaborated:
Many people building on Ethereum are doing stuff in DeFi so you end up with the appearance that DeFi is against ProgPoW, when there is nothing particular about DeFi that implies opposition to ProgPoW.
This observation is further supported by comparing current opposition to that seen in 2019. Prominent opponents of ProgPoW today, such as Eric Conner and Martin Köppelmann, also strongly opposed it a year prior, when DeFi was still in its nascent stages of development.
According to Warwick, the primary argument against ProgPoW centers on the perceived poor risk-reward trade-off it represents. He summarized the opposing viewpoint:
I think the pro-ProgPoW side feels at this point that a lot of time and effort has been put into ProgPoW and there are no really strong arguments against it on merits, and that sentiment with no substance is not sufficient to block an EIP.
Warwick acknowledged that Ethereum’s protocol governance might necessitate a degree of specialization, as application builders are often deeply immersed in their own ecosystems and may find it challenging to remain fully updated on protocol-level discussions. Nevertheless, he believes ProgPoW is unlikely to be implemented due to the community’s firm stance on the principle of the matter.
📍 A recently identified vulnerability has also contributed to diverging viewpoints. Opponents view it as evidence of ProgPoW’s inherent risk, while Minehan interprets it as a factor that could potentially strengthen the algorithm.
The Enduring Significance of ASIC Resistance
Minehan believes that the Ethereum community’s focus on ASIC resistance has somewhat diminished since 2018, despite the protocol’s whitepaper explicitly expressing opposition to specialized mining hardware. She views the ProgPoW debate as a fundamental conflict between those who seek to uphold Ethereum’s original principles and those advocating for the protocol’s evolutionary path, describing it as a largely philosophical debate rather than a purely technical one at this juncture.
Although some point to Bitcoin’s example as evidence that ASICs are not inherently detrimental, Minehan cautions against a direct comparison. She explained:
It’s important people understand that each coin is like its own unique biome. […] In Bitcoin you want ASICs. Bitcoin ASICs have become so specialized that […] it’s become the perfect hardware of choice to actually promote people to be aligned with the incentives of the network.
She further elaborated that Ethereum ASICs lack the benefit of years of development and supply chain maturity that Bitcoin miners have benefited from. This maturity, she argues, has fostered more equitable access to ASICs within Bitcoin’s ecosystem. Ethereum, she noted, does not possess the advantage of ten years of proof-of-work development.
Furthermore, Minehan contended that Ethereum ASICs are unlikely to achieve widespread accessibility, even with extended development timelines. She highlighted the technical challenges:
There is a big difference in skill gap between designing a memory-hard ASIC […] and building a SHA-256 ASIC. […] In Ethereum, if only a few people can pull off that highly specialized ASIC, it naturally becomes much more centralized.
She pointed out that while producing competitive Bitcoin ASICs is challenging, memory-hard algorithms like Ethash present distinct complexities. Minehan detailed:
Many people don’t know this, but there are restrictions on memory controllers and memory parts. Certain chips have restrictions on which country they can be sold to. Thus, memory-based ASICs often have supply chain restrictions as well.
The convergence of these factors, coupled with acknowledged weaknesses in Ethash, contributes to a notably centralized market for Ethereum ASICs. Minehan summarized this challenge:
You don’t want to have an algorithm that is in the middle. You either want to have an algorithm that’s easy to make an ASIC for, or really hard to make an ASIC for.
The Continuing Debate
The years-long debate surrounding ProgPoW is beginning to show signs of fatigue. Minehan expressed that many original participants, including herself, have become somewhat apathetic, stating, At this point, I am completely neutral. Vitalik Buterin also commented that he is indifferent regarding ProgPoW.
As the controversy persists, Buterin pointed out Ethereum’s lack of a definitive mechanism to reject proposals, suggesting that community exhaustion from continuous debates appears to be the current de facto resolution, though he conceded, But that seems suboptimal.
The Ethereum Core Developers are scheduled to meet on Friday at 14:00 UTC to discuss the potential next steps concerning ProgPoW.
Final Thoughts
The ongoing discussion surrounding Ethereum’s ProgPoW mining algorithm highlights a significant divide within the community regarding ASIC resistance and the future direction of the network. While proponents emphasize decentralization and adherence to original principles, opponents raise concerns about implementation risks and potential delays to the Ethereum 2.0 roadmap. The debate underscores a fundamental philosophical difference in how the protocol should evolve.