Execution Layer Meeting 201

[timbeiko]

Meeting Info

• Dec 5, 2024, 14:00-15:30 UTC
• Stream: https://youtube.com/live/Umh7ZKukmtY
• Zoom: shared on #allcoredevs Discord channel shortly before the call
• Ethereum Protocol Calls Calendar subscription

Agenda

• Pectra updates
  • Mekong & devnet-5 updates
  • BLS gas pricing
  • EIP-7623 inclusion discussion
    • Update EIP-7623 with additional security considerations EIPs#9086
  • EIP-7762 inclusion discussion
• EIP-4444 & EIP-7639 rollout
• EIP-4803
• Potential ACD Improvements
  • Declined for Inclusion
  • Non-consensus changes in Meta EIPs
  • PFI → CFI → SFI & devnet inclusion
• ACD holiday schedule 🎄
  • Testing call on Dec 23
  • Cancel ACDE on Dec 26
  • Cancel testing call on Dec 30
  • Replace ACDC by testing call on Jan 2

[pipermerriam]

I would like to give a recap and update on the rollout of 4444s and the agreed upon plans from the R&D Workshop.

[lightclient]

Can we discuss https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7639

[axic]

Would like to bring back https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4803. I think last time we discussed it, it just slipped through, but should be rather straightforward.

[onbjerg]

I'd like to bring up the possibility of raising blob count in Pectra with e.g. EIP-7691 as a short term compromise anticipating demand ahead of PeerDAS. Relevant resources:

• https://ethresear.ch/t/block-arrivals-home-stakers-bumping-the-blob-count/21096
• https://ethpandaops.io/posts/network-limit-devnets/

[timbeiko]

@pipermerriam @lightclient @axic added! @onbjerg given we just agreed to 6/9 on the CL call, do you still want to discuss 7691?

[nerolation]

As agreed in ACDC 146, we wanted to put EIP-7623 on the agenda to decide upon its inclusion in Pectra.

[onbjerg]

@pipermerriam @lightclient @axic added! @onbjerg given we just agreed to 6/9 on the CL call, do you still want to discuss 7691?

no i think we're good:)

[shemnon]

For the EIP-7623 discussion we need to have an expressed resolution to the "gas sheltering" concern raised in the eth-magicians thread, one of why it isn't a concern or a sufficiently large enough concern to halt the EIP, adopting a mitigation such as not having a floor price and simply raising the calldata cost, or (if the concern is strong enough) not adopting the EIP because of it. This expressed resolution should be included in the "Security Considerations" section.

---

Second, (an easier issue) - I don't think the impact of the transaction floor price is sufficiently clear and should be written as a spec and not as a side effect of the formula.

For implementation this means that a transaction must be able to pay the floor cost before execution.

should be something stronger and declarative like

Any transaction with a gas limit less than 21000 + TOTAL_COST_FLOOR_PER_TOKEN * tokens_in_calldata is invalid. This limitation exists because transactions must be able to pay for the floor price of their call data without relying the execution of the transaction. There are valid cases where gasUsed will be below this floor price, but the floor price needs to be reserved in the transaction gas limit.

Also, the impact on wallets and RPCs such as eth_estimateGas should be called out in Backwards Compatibility to explicitly notify wallet devs and node devs to update their handing for the new limits.

[shemnon]

The PR above this commnet addresses my concerns.

[timbeiko]

Some comments re: BLS pricing by @chfast:

Besides the gas cost, I still have two problems with the current design:

1. MSM for small number of points should not be more expensive than equivalent MUL+ADD combinations.
2. If 1 is considered, the MUL in completely useless to the point it is harmful to include it.

[pipermerriam]

Can someone update the EIP-4444 & EIP 7639 issue to link to this document: https://hackmd.io/Dobc38YVQ1qmbbyI6LcFqA

[akashkshirsagar31]

Podcast (audio only) - https://open.spotify.com/episode/7qyMrrw4SHB5FCQM9Krbdw?si=NGDAq8KcQ9GdgRdOysUCwg

[timbeiko]

Closed in favor of #1209