Ethereum core developers tentatively agreed on January 4, 2019 to continue toward implementing ProgPoW, a proposed replacement for Ethereum’s Ethash proof-of-work algorithm, provided further testing revealed no major problems. The development occurred during AllCoreDevs meeting 52, which began at 14:00 UTC and included ProgPoW as a formal agenda item.
The decision was important but narrower than an unconditional approval. No activation block, release date or mainnet deployment was established on January 4. The meeting also did not bind miners, exchanges, application developers or node operators to accept a future release.
What developers advanced
ProgPoW was documented as EIP-1057, an Ethereum Improvement Proposal created on May 2, 2018. Its authors designed the algorithm to exercise more of the hardware available in commodity graphics processors. Their stated objective was to reduce the efficiency advantage obtainable from application-specific integrated circuits, or ASICs, while preserving Ethereum’s proof-of-work system.
During meeting 52, developer Hudson Jameson summarized the position as tentatively moving forward, conditional on testing. Contemporaneous reporting described the discussion as a preliminary consensus rather than a finalized network upgrade. That distinction matters: an AllCoreDevs call coordinates client development, but a protocol change still requires working implementations, testing, compatible client releases and adoption by the operators who participate in the network.
The record therefore supports saying that developers advanced the proposal. It does not support saying that Ethereum adopted or activated ProgPoW on January 4, 2019.
Why mining hardware mattered
Ethereum still used proof-of-work in January 2019. Miners competed for block rewards by supplying computational work, so a change to the mining algorithm could redistribute the relative value of existing equipment. GPU miners and ASIC operators consequently had different commercial interests in the outcome.
EIP-1057 argued that matching the algorithm’s workload more closely to commodity GPUs would leave specialized hardware with less room for efficiency gains. Those were design claims, not independently established results on January 4. The surviving event-day record does not demonstrate how a mature ProgPoW ASIC would have performed, how mining concentration would have changed, or whether the transition would have produced unintended security or compatibility problems.
The proposal also exposed a governance question. Core developers could decide whether to prepare code, but they could not guarantee that the broader network would run it. A contentious mining change could produce incompatible client behavior if important constituencies rejected the release. The conditional language and demand for more testing were therefore substantive safeguards, not editorial caveats added after the fact.
Separate from Constantinople
Meeting 52 also reviewed the approaching Constantinople upgrade, but ProgPoW was not part of the Constantinople package scheduled at that point. Treating the two as one upgrade would incorrectly imply that the January 4 discussion placed ProgPoW on an imminent activation timetable.
No market-price claim is necessary to establish the significance of the decision. Cryptocurrency trading occurs continuously across venues, and the cited records do not provide a controlled basis for attributing any January 4 ether movement to the developer call.
Later context, clearly separated
On January 15, 2019, Ethereum stakeholders postponed the planned Constantinople activation at block 7,080,000 after a separate security concern was identified. That later postponement did not concern ProgPoW and was not knowable during the January 4 meeting.
Later audits and renewed debates also did not convert the January 4 checkpoint into an activation. The maintained EIP record ultimately classified EIP-1057 as Stagnant. That later status confirms why the event-day development should be described as conditional progress rather than completed adoption.
The complete source packet and revision history are retained with the newsroom record.
Automated systems may have assisted with source organization and drafting. Coinburn is accountable for the published text and maintains a revision record.
This article provides news and analysis, not investment, legal or tax advice. Digital assets are volatile and may result in total loss.