Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Execution Layer Meeting 202 #1209

Closed
timbeiko opened this issue Dec 5, 2024 · 12 comments
Closed

Execution Layer Meeting 202 #1209

timbeiko opened this issue Dec 5, 2024 · 12 comments

Comments

@timbeiko
Copy link
Collaborator

timbeiko commented Dec 5, 2024

Meeting Info

Agenda

@pipermerriam
Copy link
Member

Should have an update on 4444s based on the outcome how client teams weigh in on this document: https://notes.ethereum.org/M41Oj3WyRVSC36Rr0c-Tjg

@protolambda
Copy link

I would like to propose a simple change to EIP-7702, before it is too late and the Pectra spec is frozen: change the auth.chain_id size limit back to uint256.

This is key to enable future more interoperable chain configurations and elastic chain instantiations, by binding the identity to the config/pre-state of the chain. And other ethereum protocol rules allow uint256 chain IDs, so why start arbitrarily limiting them here?

See eth-magicians comment for more context: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-7702-set-eoa-account-code/19923/326

@yperbasis
Copy link
Member

I'd like to revert removal of NewBlock(Hashes) in eth/69: ethereum/EIPs#9133

@CarlBeek
Copy link

I'd like to discuss EIP-7808 with reserves half of the Tx-Type range for use by the RollCall process. (Much like we did with EIP-7587 for precompiles.)

@0xwormhole
Copy link

I have extended the technical specification for EIP-7503 in this pull request: ethereum/EIPs#9080

I cannot participate in the call directly. I would appreciate feedback from core developers on my changes. Is the proposed implementation plan satisfactory? What should be changed or improved?

I am not an expert in cryptography. I cannot provide a complete implementation of this part of the EIP. How should we proceed?

What is the process for including these changes in an Ethereum hard fork?

Thank you!

@fjl
Copy link

fjl commented Dec 18, 2024

Alternative proposal for removing chain_id in EIP-7702 authorization tuple: ethereum/EIPs#9152

@MarekM25
Copy link

MarekM25 commented Dec 18, 2024

I want to provide an update regarding the changes in EIP-2537.

Gas costs updates:

And discuss the decision about EIP-2537: Remove redundant MUL precompiles. This PR has support from the six people involved in the BLS discussion. If there are no objections, we should proceed with merging it

@dcrapis
Copy link

dcrapis commented Dec 18, 2024

I would like to announce a working group that Ansgar and I are starting in January to coordinate a benchmarking effort on EVM opcodes and resources.

We want to update resource consumption approximations from the table that was initially used to set gas costs, in a more principled way. This will enable changes to opcode costs and also contribute to our ongoing research on a multi-dimensional fee mechanism.

Ansgar will also introduce related topics that we can also potentially address in the working group (refund structure, access list and state warming at the block level).

@timbeiko
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@pipermerriam @protolambda @yperbasis @CarlBeek @0xwormhole @fjl @MarekM25 @dcrapis I've added all your agenda items in order of urgency. Hopefully we manage to get through all of them on the call!

@arnetheduck
Copy link
Contributor

ethereum/consensus-specs#4064 is relevant for the group of execution client developers - specifically, an option to put a limit on the size of the transaction list in an execution payload is being considered.

@akashkshirsagar31
Copy link

@timbeiko
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Closed in favor of #1227

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests