Add EIP: FOCIL with ranked transactions (FOCILR) #10554
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
c-new
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
eth-bot
added
e-consensus
eth-bot
changed the title
anderselowsson
force-pushed
the
autumn-eips
branch
from
7e6065c to
0e8c699
Compare
anderselowsson
force-pushed
the
autumn-eips
branch
from
0e8c699 to
7f52250
Compare
anderselowsson
force-pushed
the
autumn-eips
branch
from
4847d2b to
5901959
Compare
|
The commit 5901959 (as a parent of 3d34007) contains errors. |
github-actions
bot
added
c-update
anderselowsson
force-pushed
the
autumn-eips
branch
from
123ae12 to
ec3d83f
Compare
|
|
||
| ```Python | ||
| # TODO: To be defined after scheduling this EIP relative to EIP-7999 and EIP-8011, etc. | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
add a html <-- TODO --> marker here for bot to help you flag when moving past draft stage
EIPS/eip-8046.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### Altered FOCIL post-execution inclusion check | ||
|
|
||
| The post-execution inclusion check of EIP-7805 is altered as outlined in the figure. Orange squares represent the original FOCIL checks, where "No" always leads to jumping to the next transaction. Blue squares are the checks added in FOCILR that account for ranking. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
recommend to ref to EIP 7805 as a link, which is generally handy
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was linked previously but added links for all repeated EIP references throughout the document now.
|
|
||
| ----- | ||
|
|
||
| The original step (1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you also include step 1 in your comparison image for the sake of completeness, so that references to step 1 are clear
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks that's good advice! I updated the figure now.
EIPS/eip-8046.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| There are nuances to the design that need careful consideration before adoption. Something to be attentive to is the effect of burning the marginal ranking fee, given that avoiding the burn is not a zero-sum outcome for builders and includers. This is further discussed in the next section. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Alternative designs for rewarding includers |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
move alternative designs to spec heading, not sure if this all belongs in a Rationale heading
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed headings
eth-bot
left a comment
eth-bot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...
4 participants
No description provided.