-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 325
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 196 #1143
Comments
@fjl made a proposal to EIP-7685 to change the hashing scheme from an MPT to flat keccak256 of the data. Would be good to discuss, I think it makes sense: ethereum/EIPs#8854 |
Furthermore, we are proposing to simplify the encoding of requests to match the output of the contracts exactly. At the moment, the specs require us to create an intermediate RLP form of these requests, but this encoding is not going to be used by anything. It was just defined like this in order to be similar to encoded transactions.
Changing to a flat encoding removes the need for us to parse contract output in the EL client. The deposit contract returns event data in Solidity ABI encoding. We cannot change this encoding, but transforming it to a flat encoding mostly means removing ABI padding. For the newer system contracts in EIP-7002, EIP-7251 we can just forward what they return to the CL directly. The objects in the return output of these contracts are in fact already SSZ-encoded, so the CL will be able to parse them easily. |
I'd like to discuss ethereum/EIPs#8865 (Update EIP-7702: consistent signature validity checks) |
Added @lightclient @fjl @yperbasis, thanks! |
I'd like to give a small heads up for the network config alignment on the mainnet, sepolia & holesky repositories. Once structures are aligned & EL/CL bootnodes are consistently tracked for all networks, |
Sharing Reth's (Aug 30) opinion about ethereum/EIPs#8846 from the R&D discord: |
Would like some time to discuss this EIP ethereum/EIPs#8849 |
@MaxResnick we'll cover it as part of ethereum/EIPs#8846 👍 |
Regards discussion of potential EIP additions to PectraIf there is potential for a pivot of Fusaka from Verkle, that may change the priority of proposed for inclusion EIPs or even EIPs not yet included in devnets (e.g. EOF, PeerDAS) as they could be considered for Fusaka instead. Reducing the scope/size/risk of Pectra. |
I would like to discuss EIP-2537. The Geth team is of the opinion that the MSM precompiles should not have a cost model that assumes that the implementation makes use of concurrency. When we restrict our implementation (gnark) to single-threaded execution, the cost model becomes very underpriced (100% vs the performance of Geth's ecrecover precompile implementation in the worst case for g1). We want to propose increasing the cost of the MSM precompiles to bring them in line with the performance of the other precompiles. The simplest way to do this is to double each entry in the discount factor table for the MSM cost model. I have posted benchmarks of all the precompiles here ran on two machines. BLS Costs with and without the proposed repricing are presented as well as benchmarks of Geth's ecrecover precompile implementation for context. |
See also https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-2537-bls12-precompile-discussion-thread/4187/76#msms-3 The spec doesn't mention any concurrent execution. If needed, it is definitely not an option for evmone / Silkworm. |
Some statement from the EF JavaScript team on the proposed EIP additions and EIP changes (not sure if we have someone joining the call today): CL Request additions (so all under "Encoding changes", requests root -> flat hash, flat encoding (no RLP), signature validity checks): EIP-7623: Increase calldata cost EIP-7742: Uncouple blob count between CL and EL EIP-7762: Increase MIN_BASE_FEE_PER_BLOB_GAS RIP-7212 (secp256r1 Curve) + SSZ EIPs We therefore do not support the addition of any mid-size-or-larger EIPs (RIP-7212 + SSZ EIPs in this category) to the Pectra HF, independent of the usefulness of the respective EIP. In case that there might be a non-Verkle focused HF after Pectra this next HF can then be a candidate to combine these kind of EIPs, judging by experience additional similarly sized EIPs will likely join "naturally" for this fork. 😁 |
Nethermind's View: EIP-7623: Increase calldata cost EIP-7742: Uncouple blob count between CL and EL EIP-7762: Increase MIN_BASE_FEE_PER_BLOB_GAS RIP-7212 (secp256r1 Curve) SSZ EIPs CL Request additions |
Note that the SSZ scope has been split up, into CL-only changes (for a more useable EIP-4788 beacon block root for decentralized staking pools: https://stabilitynow.box) and the more involved EL changes (leading to the ability to run a verifying wallet light client: https://fusaka-light.box). As an author of these EIPs, I agree with EL client teams that the EL changes should be descoped from Pectra CFI (EIP-6404, EIP-6466, EIP-6493, EIP-6465) while the remaining CL changes are fully independent of EL teams and also PeerDAS, and should be temperature checked once more in ACDC around the devnet 5 timing (EIP-7495, EIP-7688). Currently, on the CL devnet, we have working StableContainer implementations from Lighthouse, Lodestar, Nimbus, Teku. Would be great if the CFI list could be updated to reflect that state (as in, have only the CL changes on it: EIP-7495, EIP-7688). |
@etan-status can you add this to the agenda for the next ACDC? ty! |
Closed in favor of #1153 |
Podcast (audio only) - https://open.spotify.com/episode/75myQLPk7S5NkAPsBVlvkq?si=gw-m6yLHRzyC1HHAO61gcw |
Meeting Info
#allcoredevs
Discord channel shortly before the callAgenda
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: