Abstract:The Ethereum Improvement Proposal 3675 (EIP-3675) marks a significant shift, transitioning from a Proof of Work (PoW) to a Proof of Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism. This transition resulted in a staggering 99.95% decrease in energy consumption. However, the transition prompts two critical questions: (1). How does EIP-3675 affect miners' dynamics? and (2). How do users determine priority fees, considering that paying too little may cause delays or non-inclusion, yet paying too much wastes money with little to no benefits? To address the first question, we present a comprehensive empirical study examining EIP-3675's effect on miner dynamics (i.e., miner participation, distribution, and the degree of randomness in miner selection). Our findings reveal that the transition has encouraged broader participation of miners in block append operation, resulting in a larger pool of unique miners ($\approx50\times$ PoW), and the change in miner distribution with the increased number of unique small category miners ($\approx60\times$ PoW). However, there is an unintended consequence: a reduction in the miner selection randomness, which signifies the negative impact of the transition to PoS-Ethereum on network decentralization. Regarding the second question, we employed regression-based machine learning models; the Gradient Boosting Regressor performed best in predicting priority fees, while the K-Neighbours Regressor was worst.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper attempts to solve two main problems:
1. **The impact of EIP - 3675 on miner dynamics**:
- EIP - 3675 marks Ethereum's transition from Proof of Work (PoW) to Proof of Stake (PoS). This transition significantly reduces energy consumption (by approximately 99.95%), but has an impact on miner participation, distribution, and the randomness of their choices.
- The research uses empirical analysis to explore the specific impacts of EIP - 3675 on miner dynamics, including miner participation, distribution (changes in the number of small, medium, and large miners), and the randomness of miner choices.
2. **How users determine the priority fee**:
- Under the PoS mechanism, users need to set the transaction fee reasonably to avoid transaction delays or non - inclusion due to low fees, or wasting money due to high fees.
- The paper uses regression models (such as Gradient Boosting Regressor and K - Neighbours Regressor) to predict the priority fee and evaluate the performance of these models.
### Specific problem description
#### 1. The impact of EIP - 3675 on miner dynamics
- **Miner participation**: The research found that miner participation under the PoS mechanism has increased significantly. Specifically, the number of unique miners in PoS Ethereum is approximately 50 times that of PoW Ethereum (see Table 2).
- **Miner distribution**: The number of small miners has increased substantially (approximately 60 times that of PoW Ethereum), while the number of medium - and large - sized miners has not changed much (see Figure 4).
- **Randomness of miner choices**: Although the number of miners has increased, the randomness of miner choices has decreased, which may have a negative impact on the decentralization of the network.
#### 2. How users determine the priority fee
- **Transaction Fee Mechanism (TFM)**: Under the PoS mechanism, the transaction fee consists of the base fee and the priority fee. The volatility of the priority fee has increased, so users need to set the transaction fee more carefully.
- **Machine learning models**: The paper uses multiple regression models to predict the priority fee, among which the Gradient Boosting Regressor performs the best and the K - Neighbours Regressor performs the worst.
### Summary
This paper uses empirical analysis to explore the impact of EIP - 3675 on Ethereum miner dynamics and the transaction fee mechanism, revealing the phenomena of increased miner participation, a substantial growth in the number of small miners, and a decline in the randomness of miner choices under the PoS mechanism. At the same time, the research also proposes a machine - learning - based priority fee prediction method, providing users with a reasonable transaction fee - setting strategy.
### Related formulas
- Base fee calculation formula:
\[
\text{baseFee}=\text{gasUsed}\times\text{baseFeePerGas}
\]
- Transaction fee calculation formula:
\[
\text{txnFee}=\text{gasUsed}\times\text{gasPrice}
\]
- Priority fee calculation formula:
\[
\text{priorityFee}=\text{txnFee}-\text{baseFee}
\]
Through these formulas, users can better understand the composition of the transaction fee and adjust the transaction fee according to the actual situation to optimize the transaction processing time and cost.