Skip to content

consensus/misc/eip4844, internal/ethapi: decouple BPO forks from named forks#32908

Closed
jwasinger wants to merge 3 commits intoethereum:masterfrom
jwasinger:decouple-bpo
Closed

consensus/misc/eip4844, internal/ethapi: decouple BPO forks from named forks#32908
jwasinger wants to merge 3 commits intoethereum:masterfrom
jwasinger:decouple-bpo

Conversation

@jwasinger
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Mainly, I'm opening this right now so it's known that someone's started working on this. It doesn't seem like this should be a complex change in the end, but I'm still wrapping my head around what's needed.

As I understand it, the end result of these changes will be the following:

  • blob schedule parameter changes are removed from named hard-forks. The parameters are specified only via BPO forks.
  • The blob schedule parameters for a given hard-fork are sourced from last BPO fork defined before the named hard-fork.

Probably, this has implications with config validation, including the validation of fork ordering, and I'm still looking into that aspect of the changes.

@MariusVanDerWijden MariusVanDerWijden self-assigned this Oct 16, 2025
@jwasinger jwasinger marked this pull request as ready for review October 21, 2025 08:10
@jwasinger
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I need to tweak the banner to indicate that BPOs and named forks are decoupled.

@lightclient
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Last I heard on this is that we preferred to explicitly define the blob parameters for each fork. Just want to confirm that are changing stance on that?

@barnabasbusa
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Marius gave me his blessing

@MariusVanDerWijden
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'm still not happy, but I don't want to stand in the way of progress

Comment thread params/config.go
@fjl
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

fjl commented Dec 2, 2025

I would prefer to take care of this in the config2 refactoring #32224

@fjl fjl removed the status:triage label Dec 2, 2025
@jwasinger jwasinger closed this Dec 18, 2025
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants