Update EIP-5218: Renumber to EIP-9

[Pandapip1]

I self-assign myself EIP-9. As per the current EIP-1, I have the power to do this.

I recognize that other editors might feel that this is blatantly self-serving. As such, I will extend to all editors the courtesy of commenting on this number assignment before I merge it. I recommend that any editors believing this to be unfair review #7388.

Have a great day!

Note: This is meant specifically as a demonstration of the absurdity of the current EIP rules. If this renumbering somehow does get merged, I will re-assign it EIP-5218 and contemplate the nature of reality.

[eth-bot]

File EIPS/eip-5218.md

Requires 1 more reviewers from @grimmelm, @iseriohn, @relyt29

[github-actions]

The commit 94b7d21 (as a parent of 56db02f) contains errors.
Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

[lightclient]

With power comes responsibility.

[Pandapip1]

With power comes responsibility.

Agreed. Therefore, we should limit editors' number assigning powers to something more reasonable.

[lightclient]

Or we should have editors who don't need their assignment power curtailed, because they are responsible with the power and operate always in the interest of the community.

[Pandapip1]

Or we should have editors who don't need their assignment power curtailed, because they are responsible with the power and operate always in the interest of the community.

A large portion of the community disagrees with your assignment of EIP-5000, myself included. I nonetheless am not advocating for your removal. If a system can be abused, then that's a problem with the system, not the people in it.

That is the entire premise for the existence of the Ethereum Consensus Layer: it's a system that has enough rules that the extent to which it can be abused is minimal. Otherwise, there's no reason Ethereum couldn't be operated using PoA.

[lightclient]

A large portion of the community disagrees with your assignment of EIP-5000

Where are they? As usual, it is just EIP editors and few people who clearly opened spam before their PR was opened and they didn't get the number they wanted. The majority of the community doesn't care about EIP numbers.

That is the entire premise for the existence of the Ethereum Consensus Layer

EIP editing isn't a consensus mechanism, wasn't designed to be one, and shouldn't aim to become one. We are professionals trying to document change proposals to Ethereum as best we can.

[Pandapip1]

Where are they?

The following is a list of people that disagreed with your decision to assign EIP-5000:

• @Pandapip1 (Source: me)
• @MicahZoltu (Source: opened initial PR)
• @SamWilsn (Delete EIP-5000 #5255 (comment))
• @abcoathup (Update EIP-5000: Renumber to EIP-5159 #5270 (comment))

The following is a list of people that want a clear policy for EIP numbering:

• @Pandapip1 (Source: me)
• @MicahZoltu (Source: recent Discord DM)
• @SamWilsn
• you, @lightclient (Source: you reacted 👍 to Update EIP-5000: Renumber to EIP-5159 #5270 (comment), and Rethink EIP numbering #6990 (comment))
• @gcolvin (Delete EIP-5000 #5255 (comment))
• @xinbenlv (Update EIP-5000: Renumber to EIP-5159 #5270 (comment))

[a] few people who clearly opened spam before their PR was opened and they didn't get the number they wanted

I wasn't able to find any non-editors supporting my position, not even spammers.

The majority of the community doesn't care about EIP numbers.

You clearly do, since you (rightfully) disagree with this PR. Additionally, I do not believe there to be evidence to support or dismiss this statement. CC @poojaranjan?

EIP editing ... wasn't designed to be [a consensus mechanism]

I wasn't there when the EIPs repository was formed. If you know this to be true, I will defer to you.

EIP editing isn't a consensus mechanism

EIP editing has nonetheless acquired a consensus mechanism.

We are professionals trying to document change proposals to Ethereum as best we can.

I approve of this statement.

---

You seem to support the position of "if I have the authority to do it, then it should be allowed": #5270 (comment). If you have since changed your mind, or I am somehow not picking up on some nuance, please correct me.

I'm going to stop debating now, and since I believe my point has been sufficiently made, I'll close this PR. Please continue discussion at the other PR: #7388