Add EIP: Block-level Warming with fair cost savings #9428
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
c-new
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
eth-bot
added
e-consensus
|
The commit c23394e (as a parent of b1d9e19) contains errors. |
eth-bot
changed the title
bomanaps
left a comment
bomanaps
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please kindly take a look at the lining format. Usually, you start a new sentence on a new line.
|
|
||
| ### Calculating a reimbursement of the charged priority fee | ||
|
|
||
| Each transaction pays an individual `priorityFeePerGas` value and redistributing this part of the cold access cost |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
each tx pays priority + base fee, you only applying warming on priority fee?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, as the base fee is same for all transactions in a block it is easy to just split the cost. Priority fee is different and we need some kind of a formula to redistribute its costs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but you are not reimbursing whatever is the extra base fee for already warmed stuff?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Basically, we reimburse the base fee by redistributing all the base fee collected to all transactions accessing the storage, this is described in ### Calculating a reimbursement of the burned base fee. Maybe you could suggest a better way to define this behaviour?
|
Hello @bomanaps and thank you for the review. I have removed the use of |
SamWilsn
left a comment
SamWilsn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is good to go for a draft. Do address these comments before moving into Review.
| --- | ||
| eip: 7557 | ||
| title: Block-level Warming with fair cost savings | ||
| description: Block-level warming of addresses and slots with access lists |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You have a bit more room (144 characters) in your description. You should expand and give a bit more detail.
| A mechanism for a fair distribution of the gas costs associated with access to addresses and storage slots | ||
| among multiple transactions with shared items in their `accessList`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The abstract should contain a brief (but still technical) overview of the proposal. Can you sketch out the mechanism here without getting too in the weeds?
eth-bot
left a comment
eth-bot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...
eth-bot
left a comment
eth-bot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...
5 participants
Reopening the old PR that I did not realise was not previously merged (#7968)
This proposal is significantly different from EIP-7863 (#9246), arguably presents a more complete and fair solution that is worth the extra complexity, and precedes it for more than a year.