Reconfiguring AllCoreDevs: Tim Beiko’s Divide and Conquer Strategy

Ethereum’s core developers are at a critical juncture, struggling to manage multiple upgrades simultaneously. Tim Beiko, a key figure in the Ethereum community, has proposed a solution to streamline this process by splitting the developers into two specialized teams: planners and builders.

• Ethereum developers face simultaneous upgrades
• Tim Beiko proposes splitting into planners and builders
• Planners to set future upgrade scope, builders to execute current upgrades
• Enhanced community engagement and timely upgrades expected

Ethereum’s developers are like chefs trying to cook multiple gourmet dishes at once. The current Pectra upgrade is on the stove, while the Fusaka upgrade is already being prepped for the next course. This juggling act has led to split focus and delays, threatening the platform’s progress. Enter Tim Beiko, who’s ready to restore order with a “divide and conquer” strategy.

Beiko’s plan is simple yet revolutionary: split the core developers into planners and builders. Planners will map out what needs to be done in future updates, setting the scope and headline goals. For instance, they’ll focus on increasing blob capacity to enhance Layer 2 (L2) scalability, which means improving the efficiency of secondary networks built on top of Ethereum. Meanwhile, builders will focus on executing the current Pectra upgrade, ensuring testing and bug fixes are done without the distraction of scope creep.

This division aims to enhance efficiency by allowing each team to focus on their respective strengths. Planners can think strategically about Ethereum’s long-term roadmap, while builders can ensure the current upgrades are executed with precision. This approach not only promises faster and safer upgrades but also aims to align features more closely with community needs, reducing delays and enhancing overall productivity.

Community engagement is another crucial aspect of Beiko’s plan. By incorporating structured feedback, regular check-ins, and increased transparency, the new process seeks to better integrate community input into the development cycle. This is particularly important as Ethereum continues to evolve, requiring the input of a diverse range of stakeholders to ensure its upgrades meet the platform’s growing demands.

However, implementing this new structure isn’t without its challenges. Balancing flexibility for urgent Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs) and avoiding bureaucratic slowdowns will be key. The developers must ensure that this new approach doesn’t stifle the innovation that has driven Ethereum’s success thus far.

The Pectra upgrade itself is a significant step forward, aiming to improve protocol efficiency, user experience, and data availability. It includes account abstraction, allowing users to pay gas fees with tokens other than ETH, and enhancements to validator operations and consensus mechanisms. The decision to split the Pectra upgrade into phases was influenced by the need to manage complexity and reduce implementation risks, as highlighted by the EthPandaOps team and Ethereum Foundation Researcher Alex Stokes.

As Ethereum continues to navigate its ambitious roadmap, Beiko’s proposal reflects a maturing approach to managing complex blockchain development. It’s a testament to the platform’s commitment to continuous improvement and its willingness to adapt to the demands of decentralized technology.

In the spirit of decentralization, Beiko’s suggestion also aligns with the principles of rough consensus, openness, and a strong security mindset that underpin Ethereum’s ethos. By fostering a more focused and efficient development process, Ethereum can better position itself to compete with other blockchains and meet the demands of its growing user base.

To deliver on Ethereum’s ambitious L1 roadmap, we should decouple planning and execution.

While Beiko’s proposal offers a promising path forward, it’s essential to remain vigilant about potential pitfalls. The crypto world is no stranger to grandiose promises and unforeseen challenges. Ethereum’s developers must navigate this new process with the same critical eye and resilience that has made the platform a leader in the blockchain space.

From a Bitcoin maximalist perspective, this strategy might be seen as Ethereum’s attempt to catch up with Bitcoin’s more streamlined development process. However, it’s important to recognize that Ethereum’s role in the ecosystem is different, focusing on smart contracts and decentralized applications, which require a more complex upgrade process. This proposal could help Ethereum fill its unique niche more effectively.

Moreover, Beiko’s strategy aligns with the principles of effective accelerationism (e/acc), emphasizing disruption and progress. By streamlining the development process, Ethereum can accelerate its evolution, pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in decentralized technology.

As we watch this strategy unfold, it’s clear that Ethereum’s journey is far from over. The road ahead is paved with both opportunities and obstacles, but with a dedicated team and a clear vision, the future of Ethereum looks bright—or should we say, decentralized.

Key Takeaways and Questions

• What problem does Ethereum face with its current upgrade process?

  Ethereum faces challenges due to developers managing multiple upgrades simultaneously, leading to split focus and delays.

• What solution does Tim Beiko propose?

  Tim Beiko proposes splitting Ethereum’s core developers into planners and builders to streamline the development process.

• What is the role of planners in the proposed system?

  Planners focus on setting the scope and headline goals for future upgrades, such as increasing blob capacity for Layer 2 scalability.

• What is the role of builders in the proposed system?

  Builders concentrate on executing the current upgrade, focusing on testing and bug fixes without scope creep.

• How will the new process improve community engagement?

  The new process includes structured feedback, regular check-ins, and transparency to better incorporate community input.

• What are the expected outcomes of the proposed changes?

  Expected outcomes include faster and safer upgrades, features aligned with community needs, and fewer delays.

• What challenges remain with the proposed changes?

  Challenges include balancing flexibility for urgent EIPs and avoiding bureaucratic slowdowns.