Skip to content

Gloas local block building MVP#8754

Merged
mergify[bot] merged 80 commits intosigp:unstablefrom
eserilev:gloas-block-and-bid-production
Feb 17, 2026
Merged

Gloas local block building MVP#8754
mergify[bot] merged 80 commits intosigp:unstablefrom
eserilev:gloas-block-and-bid-production

Conversation

@eserilev
Copy link
Member

@eserilev eserilev commented Feb 4, 2026

Issue Addressed

The flow for local block building is

  1. Create execution payload and bid
  2. Construct beacon block
  3. Sign beacon block and publish
  4. Sign execution payload and publish

This PR adds the beacon block v4 flow , GET payload envelope and POST payload envelope (local block building only). The spec for these endpoints can be found here: ethereum/beacon-APIs#552 and is subject to change.

We needed a way to store the unsigned execution payload envelope associated to the execution payload bid that was included in the block. I introduced a new cache that stores these unsigned execution payload envelopes. the GET payload envelope queries this cache directly so that a proposer, after publishing a block, can fetch the payload envelope + sign and publish it.

I kept payload signing and publishing within the validators block service to keep things simple for now. The idea was to build out a block production MVP for devnet 0, try not to affect any non gloas code paths and build things out in such a way that it will be easy to deprecate pre-gloas code paths later on (for example block production v2 and v3).

We will eventually need to track which beacon node was queried for the block so that we can later query it for the payload. But thats not needed for the devnet.

@eserilev eserilev added the gloas label Feb 4, 2026
@eserilev eserilev mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2026
24 tasks
@jimmygchen jimmygchen added the ready-for-review The code is ready for review label Feb 5, 2026
@mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Feb 5, 2026

Some required checks have failed. Could you please take a look @eserilev? 🙏

@mergify mergify bot added waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. and removed ready-for-review The code is ready for review labels Feb 5, 2026
@mergify mergify bot added ready-for-review The code is ready for review and removed waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. labels Feb 5, 2026
@eserilev eserilev added ready-for-review The code is ready for review and removed waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. labels Feb 16, 2026
Copy link
Member

@jimmygchen jimmygchen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've reviewed this and I think it's in a good shape now 🎉

@jimmygchen jimmygchen added ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. and removed ready-for-review The code is ready for review labels Feb 17, 2026
@mergify mergify bot added the queued label Feb 17, 2026
@mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Feb 17, 2026

Merge Queue Status

Rule: default


This pull request spent 34 minutes 7 seconds in the queue, including 31 minutes 55 seconds running CI.

Required conditions to merge
  • check-success=local-testnet-success
  • check-success=test-suite-success

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 17, 2026
@mergify mergify bot merged commit eec0700 into sigp:unstable Feb 17, 2026
36 checks passed
@mergify mergify bot removed the queued label Feb 17, 2026
mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 17, 2026
Continuation of #8754, some small cleanups and address TODOs


  


Co-Authored-By: Jimmy Chen <jchen.tc@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

gloas ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

Comments