AllCoreDevs - Execution #245
Transcript
- Iván | ethrex
Gm!
- ignacio
gm
- jochem-brouwer
gm gm
- Toni Wahrstätter
- Mega | Lambda
gm
- jochem-brouwer
So lets SFI it for Hegota
- FLCL (Nethermind)
Reacted to "So lets SFI it for Hegota" with 👍
- spencer
Reacted to "So lets SFI it for..." with 👍
- Fabio Di Fabio
Reacted to "So lets SFI it for Hegota" with 👍
- Dragan Rakita
Reacted to "So lets SFI it for Hegota" with 👍
- Toni Wahrstätter
Reacted to "So lets SFI it for Hegota" with 👍
- Guru
Reacted to "So lets SFI it for H..." with 👍
- Marius van der Wijden
Reacted to "So lets SFI it for..." with 👍
- danceratopz
Reacted to "So lets SFI it for H..." with 👍
- Łukasz Rozmej
It is
- jochem-brouwer
Antwoord verzenden naar "So lets SFI it for..." https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-8253
- nixo
Replying to "So lets SFI it for H..." sorry - i'm only half-in right now, why is the decision SFI instead of CFI? if nonheadliner, wouldn't it be more approrpiate to CFI?
- danceratopz
Replying to "So lets SFI it for H..." Yes, I think Jochem meant CFI.
- Ansgar Dietrichs
link to EIP-8411: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/12299
- lightclient
headliner!
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "headliner!" with ☝️
- Will Corcoran
Reacted to "headliner!" with 🔥
- soispoke
A réagi à "headliner!" avec ☝️
- Ben Adams
headliner!
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "headliner!" with 🚀
- soispoke
A réagi à "headliner!" avec 🔥
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "headliner!" with 🔥
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "headliner!" with ☝️
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "headliner!" Fine ;)
- jochem-brouwer
Antwoord verzenden naar "So lets SFI it for..." I am fine with both, but I think it should be SFI. EIP-7610 was SFId for Glamsteredam, then DFId with the note that EIP-8253 would replace it in Hegota. So then I would say that EIP-8253 should be SFId, not CFId. (If there should be more clarity for Headliner then this should somehow be defined in the doc)
- Iván | ethrex
headliner!
- soispoke
A réagi à "headliner!" avec 🚀
- Will Corcoran
Reacted to "Fine ;)" with 🤣
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "headliner!" with 🚀
- Lean F | ethrex
Reacted to "headliner!" with 🚀
- lightclient
Reacted to "Fine ;)" with 🤣
- jochem-brouwer
headliner!!
- Christine Kim
whats the status of glamsterdam devnet 10?
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
do it
- Kamil Salakhiev
Replying to "link to EIP-8411: ht..." discord discussion https://discord.com/channels/595666850260713488/1545447655759544330 p2p call discussing fast payload broadcast https://forkcast.org/calls/p2p/008/ and relevant research post by Csaba https://ethresear.ch/t/wen-fast-payload-broadcast-segment-code-push-pull-and-everything-in-between/25913
- Guru
Reacted to "headliner!" with 🚢
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "headliner!" with 🚢
- nixo
Replying to "So lets SFI it for H..." we've explicitly said that status in one fork doesn't automatically confer status in a new fork, it has to go back through the ladder
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "we've explicitly said that status in one fork doesn't automatically confer status in a new fork, it has to go back through the ladder" with 👍
- nixo
Reacted to "headliner!" with 🚀
- nixo
Reacted to "Fine ;)" with 🤣
- Luca | Vero
Replying to "whats the status of ..." devnet-10 was used for something else, devnet-11 is the next short-lived devnet launching on Monday. Some more information here - https://notes.ethereum.org/@ethpandaops/glamsterdam-devnet-11
- Christine Kim
Replying to "whats the status of glamsterdam devnet 10?" thanks, what was devnet 10 used for?
- Satyajit
Reacted to "discord discussion..." with 👍
- Luca | Vero
Replying to "whats the status of ..." I’m not the best person to answer that, but afaik, it was practically completely unrelated to glamsterdam
- Milos | enso
what was the last eip mentioned?
- —
Łukasz Rozmej: EIP-8268 has no champion? Looking at authors: Toni Wahrstätter, Carlos Perez huh?
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "EIP-8268 has no cham..." they were not the ones proposing it for the hard fork
- spencer
Replying to "what was the last ..." I think you could champion?
- Christine Kim
Replying to "whats the status of glamsterdam devnet 10?" hmm okay thanks, maybe i'll listen back on acdt this week
- —
Łukasz Rozmej: Replying to "EIP-8268 has no champion? Looking at authors: Toni Wahrstätter, Carlos Perez huh?" bizzare :)
- Milos | enso
there also some other companies will joing this
- jochem-brouwer
EIP-8360 TCREATE should be at least PFId if it is not already, without it we cannot do EIP-4758 I also got the impression last ACDE it was implicitly PFId
- Maria Silva
Yes, sorry, I meant PFId
- jochem-brouwer
Heeft gereageerd op "Yes, sorry, I mean..." met 👍
- danceratopz
Replying to "whats the status of ..." glamsterdam-devnet-10 ran decoupled consensus testing, but I don't know the details myself: https://forkcast.org/calls/acdt/095/#t=1242
- spencer
Reacted to "EIP-8360 TCREATE s..." with 👆
- potuz
Can we DFI every EIP \cong \pm 1 (mod 3)
- potuz
Tough luck
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
whats the eip number for this tcreat?
- wolovim
https://forkcast.org/upgrade/hegota/client-priority/?group=category&layer=EL
- Ansgar Dietrichs
- nixo
Replying to "whats the eip number..." 8360
- Toni Wahrstätter
Replying to "whats the eip number for this tcreat?" https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/12073/changes
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Replying to "whats the eip number..." 🫡
- Christine Kim
Replying to "whats the status of glamsterdam devnet 10?" decoupled consensus testing? first time im hearing of that haha, seems like from the link vero shared NFT testing will be done on devnet 8 now?
- lightclient
every client? o.0
- Toni Wahrstätter
let's dfi in bulk
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Reacted to "let's dfi in bulk" with ➕
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "let's dfi in bulk" with ➕
- Will Corcoran
Reacted to "let's dfi in bulk" with ➕
- Guru
Reacted to "let's dfi in bulk" with ➕
- Milos | enso
I missed if 8360 tcreate will be discussed today
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "let's dfi in bulk" with ➕
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "I missed if 8360 tcr..." no, it will be discussed in 2 weeks
- Milos | enso
Reacted to "no, it will be dis..." with 👍
- Enrico Del Fante (tbenr)
Why EOA migration is taking so low votes? as an ethereum user I’m sad :-(
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
raise the floor to 1.3
- Ben Adams
7702 + SETCODEFROM does it
- Toni Wahrstätter
the screenshare is the wrong page?
- Marius van der Wijden
DFI DFI DFI
- spencer
Reacted to "DFI DFI DFI" with 👆
- Will Corcoran
Reacted to "DFI DFI DFI" with 👆
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "DFI DFI DFI" with 👆
- Łukasz Rozmej
Reacted to "DFI DFI DFI" with 👆
- Will Corcoran
Replying to "DFI DFI DFI" deify
- Enrico Del Fante (tbenr)
Can it close the ECDSA signature authentication? If yes I’m happy again
- Marius van der Wijden
By my hand DFI will DIE
- Lean F | ethrex
Reacted to "DFI DFI DFI" with 👆
- Ben Adams
Replying to "Why EOA migration is taking so low votes? as an ethereum user I’m sad :-(" Does automatically for tx originating; but the followup on ecrecover is just under it
- Lumi | Offchain Labs
Reacted to "By my hand DFI will DIE" with 😂
- Francesco D'Amato
Let’s first do all DFI
- Łukasz Rozmej
I'm fine CFIng
- Greg K | Lido
Reacted to "Let’s first do al..." with 👍
- Pooja Ranjan
Reacted to "Let’s first do all DFI" with 👍
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Reacted to "Let’s first do all DFI" with ➕
- spencer
CFIng!
- Csaba
CFI
- Luca | Vero
Replying to "whats the status of ..." devnet-9 was the NFT devnet that has already been spun down I believe. And devnet-8 is the long-lived named (plataberget) devnet that should be up for a while. I’m not aware of NFT testing plans on devnet-8 . But yeah, ACDT would probably have more knowledgeable people about this topic.
- Marc
Reacted to "I'm fine CFIng" with ➕
- soispoke
CFIing woud be great to keep working
- Toni Wahrstätter
Yes, CFI the top 3
- soispoke
A réagi à "Yes, CFI the top 3" avec 🔥
- spencer
Reacted to "Yes, CFI the top 3" with 🔥
- Marc
Reacted to "Yes, CFI the top 3" with 🔥
- Will Corcoran
Reacted to "Yes, CFI the top 3" with 🔥
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "Yes, CFI the top 3" with 🔥
- Dragan Rakita
Reacted to "Yes, CFI the top 3" with 🔥
- Pooja Ranjan
Reacted to "Let’s first do all DFI" with ➕
- Csaba
Not considering something with 2.7 or 3 would be strange
- Francesco D'Amato
Can we do the clear DFI first though, so at least we go through everything once before CFIing?
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "Yes, CFI the top 3" with 🔥
- Ansgar Dietrichs
we can also do one DFI pass across all 5 pages, then do a second pass for CFI?
- felipe
Reacted to "we can also do one..." with ➕
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "we can also do one D..." just to make sure we get through all DFIs today
- Enrico Del Fante (tbenr)
Replying to "Why EOA migration is..." ok.. seems like that usecae is backed by different non-obvious combination of EIPs :-)
- Marius van der Wijden
Replying to "By my hand DFI wil..." Deploying more DFIs - steady lads
- potuz
+1 DFIing a bunch would be much easier given the number of EIPs
- Francesco D'Amato
Reacted to "we can also do one DFI pass across all 5 pages, then do a second pass for CFI?" with ➕
- spencer
Reacted to "we can also do one..." with ➕
- jochem-brouwer
CFI early speeds up, so EL specs can also release tests for those EIPs
- Satyajit
Reacted to "we can also do one..." with ➕
- soispoke
A réagi à "we can also do one..." avec ➕
- Ben Adams
Replying to "Why EOA migration is taking so low votes? as an ethereum user I’m sad :-(" This is the gwei 🙂
- Łukasz Rozmej
go go googogogo
- felipe
Reacted to "CFI early speeds u..." with 💯
- lightclient
poor evm
- Mega | Lambda
Reacted to "go go googogogo" with 🏃
- felipe
Reacted to "CFI early speeds u..." with 👍
- Enrico Del Fante (tbenr)
Reacted to "This is the gwei 🙂" with 😭
- ignacio
Reacted to "go go googogogo" with 🏃
- Bosul Mun
Reacted to "poor evm" with 😂
- spencer
this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "go go googogogo" with 🚄
- Mega | Lambda
Reacted to "poor evm" with 😂
- Dragan Rakita
Reacted to "poor evm" with 😂
- Toni Wahrstätter
Reacted to "poor evm" with 😂
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "poor evm" bring back EOF :P
- potuz
Reacted to "poor evm" with 😂
- felipe
Reacted to "this coordination ..." with 💯
- soispoke
A réagi à "poor evm" avec 😂
- lightclient
Reacted to "bring back EOF :P" with 🚢
- Toni Wahrstätter
Reacted to "go go googogogo" with 🚄
- Toni Wahrstätter
Reacted to "go go googogogo" with 🏃
- lightclient
Reacted to "this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw" with 💯
- Will Corcoran
Reacted to "this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw" with 💯
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw" with 💯
- Danno Ferrin (shemnon)
Replying to "poor evm" Ship RISC-V guest programs
- Dragan Rakita
Reacted to "bring back EOF :P" with 🚢
- lightclient
Reacted to "this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw" with 🐐
- Mega | Lambda
Reacted to "this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw" with 💯
- felipe
Replying to "this coordination ..." forkcast ftw
- danceratopz
Reacted to "this coordination is..." with 💯
- Marc
Reacted to "this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw" with 💯
- Ameziane Hamlat
Reacted to "this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw" with 💯
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with ❤️
- Toni Wahrstätter
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with ❤️
- spencer
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with ❤️
- Luis Pinto | Besu
DFI
- danceratopz
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with 💯
- Fabio Di Fabio
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with 💯
- soispoke
A réagi à "this coordination ..." avec 💯
- Łukasz Rozmej
Reacted to "this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw" with 💯
- Guru
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with 💯
- Marius van der Wijden
Reacted to "DFI" with 👍
- Guru
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with ❤️
- Łukasz Rozmej
Reacted to "this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw" with 🐐
- lightclient
Reacted to "Ship RISC-V guest programs" with 😵
- Ben Edgington
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with 💯
- Ben Edgington
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with ❤️
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "poor evm" MESA (Make EVM Slow Again)
- spencer
Reacted to "bring back EOF :P" with 🚢
- spencer
Reacted to "MESA (Make EVM Slo..." with 😂
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Reacted to "MESA (Make EVM Slow Again)" with 🤣
- lightclient
Reacted to "MESA (Make EVM Slow Again)" with 😂
- lightclient
Reacted to "MESA (Make EVM Slow Again)" with 🤣
- Dragan Rakita
Reacted to "this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw" with 💯
- ignacio
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with ❤️
- Dragan Rakita
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with 💯
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw" with 🐐
- Toni Wahrstätter
Bump nonce + PAY look like CFIs, just saying
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with 💯
- felipe
Reacted to "MESA (Make EVM Slo..." with 🤣
- Łukasz Rozmej
yes B for us
- Ansgar Dietrichs
+1 to Jochem’s comment, I think we need to get to a healthier process for continued EVM evolution
- lightclient
is solidity here?
- Pooja Ranjan
Reacted to "+1 to Jochem’s comment, I think we need to get to a healthier process for continued EVM evolution" with 👍
- Lumi | Offchain Labs
Reacted to "+1 to Jochem’s comment, I think we need to get to a healthier process for continued EVM evolution" with 👍
- jochem-brouwer
https://github.com/ethereum/pm/issues/2211#issuecomment-5608915336
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "is solidity here?" with ➕
- felipe
Reacted to "MESA (Make EVM Slo..." with 🐌
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Make it 1.3 inclusive for CFI
- Christine Kim
Reacted to "forkcast ftw" with 💯
- Christine Kim
Reacted to "this coordination is crazy good compared to the last fork btw" with 💯
- Christine Kim
Reacted to "+1 to Jochem’s comment, I think we need to get to a healthier process for continued EVM evolution" with 👍
- Mega | Lambda
Reacted to "is solidity here?" with ➕
- Łukasz Rozmej
Reacted to "+1 to Jochem’s comment, I think we need to get to a healthier process for continued EVM evolution" with 👍
- Toni Wahrstätter
Reacted to "Make it 1.3 inclusive for CFI" with 🤘
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Reacted to "Make it 1.3 inclusive for CFI" with 🤘
- lightclient
i would say for 7979 we should have solidity here to tell us if they will integrate this and how beneficial it would be
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "Make it 1.3 inclusiv..." to be clear, these are just thresholds for initial direction of recommendations
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "Make it 1.3 inclusiv..." there will not be any decisions based on these numbers
- Marius van der Wijden
Reacted to "i would say for 79..." with 👍
- Danno Ferrin (shemnon)
Reacted to "i would say for 7979 we should have solidity here to tell us if they will integrate this and how beneficial it would be" with 👍
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "i would say for 7979..." with 👍
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "i would say for 7979..." that shounds like a reason to potentially postpone a DFI decision today though?
- Christine Kim
im keeping track of Hegota EIP decisions made on this call in case anyone wants to compare notes : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UVm9UurwCMWrtLAM7aKvMjdeMtZYSsm7ay8AMwo52AE/edit?usp=sharing
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Reacted to "that shounds like a reason to potentially postpone a DFI decision today though?" with ➕
- Dragan Rakita
Reacted to "that shounds like a reason to potentially postpone a DFI decision today though?" with ➕
- jochem-brouwer
Antwoord verzenden naar "i would say for 79..." yes, postpone DFI decision
- jochem-brouwer
Heeft gereageerd op "that shounds like ..." met ➕
- felipe
Reacted to "that shounds like ..." with ➕
- lightclient
Replying to "i would say for 7979..." yes seems fine to postpone
- Łukasz Rozmej
Reacted to "i would say for 7979 we should have solidity here to tell us if they will integrate this and how beneficial it would be" with 👍
- Łukasz Rozmej
Reacted to "that shounds like a reason to potentially postpone a DFI decision today though?" with ➕
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
For time purposes, can we decide to not DFI them and wait for more input from solidity, viper etc?
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "that shounds like a reason to potentially postpone a DFI decision today though?" with ➕
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "i would say for 7979 we should have solidity here to tell us if they will integrate this and how beneficial it would be" yes
- spencer
Reacted to "For time purposes,..." with ➕
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "yes, postpone DFI decision" with 👍
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "yes seems fine to postpone" with 👍
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "yes" with 👍
- Dragan Rakita
Reacted to "For time purposes, can we decide to not DFI them and wait for more input from solidity, viper etc?" with ➕
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "For time purposes, can we decide to not DFI them and wait for more input from solidity, viper etc?" with ➕
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Replying to "i would say for 7979..." can someone page solidity/vyper teams to this call?
- soispoke
A réagi à "For time purposes,..." avec ➕
- jochem-brouwer
Heeft gereageerd op "For time purposes,..." met ➕
- Ansgar Dietrichs
I personally would want to speak out in favor of delaying DFI for EIP-8163 (EXTENSION opcode) until next call. The main stakeholders are other EVM chains, and with the client team preferences published so late, I would want to give them an opportunity to come and speak up, before we make a decision
- jochem-brouwer
Heeft gereageerd op "I personally would..." met ➕
- felipe
Reacted to "For time purposes,..." with ➕
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "i would say for 7979 we should have solidity here to tell us if they will integrate this and how beneficial it would be" Can we get ranking for EVM EIP's from solidity/vyper team?
- Mega | Lambda
Reacted to "+1 to Jochem’s comment, I think we need to get to a healthier process for continued EVM evolution" with 👍
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Reacted to "Can we get ranking for EVM EIP's from solidity/vyper team?" with ➕
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Reacted to "I personally would want to speak out in favor of delaying DFI for EIP-8163 (EXTENSION opcode) until next call. The main stakeholders are other EVM chains, and with the client team preferences published so late, I would want to give them an opportunity to come and speak up, before we make a decision" with ➕
- lightclient
what would be the criteria that clients would want to see to support this for the fork
- Charles
Replying to "Message sent befor..." hello i'm here but primarily for eip 7923
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "Can we get ranking for EVM EIP's from solidity/vyper team?" with ➕
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "what would be the cr..." with ☝️
- Mega | Lambda
Reacted to "I personally would want to speak out in favor of delaying DFI for EIP-8163 (EXTENSION opcode) until next call. The main stakeholders are other EVM chains, and with the client team preferences published so late, I would want to give them an opportunity to come and speak up, before we make a decision" with ➕
- nixo
have we talked about 8173 at all? should flag that it wasn't on the rank page bc informational but we need a decision about it eventually
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Replying to "what would be the cr..." if this == 7979 all i need to hear is the compiler teams will use it.
- Toni Wahrstätter
Reacted to "For time purposes, can we decide to not DFI them and wait for more input from solidity, viper etc?" with ➕
- felipe
Reacted to "if this == 7979 al..." with 👍
- lightclient
Replying to "have we talked about..." it’s an informational
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "if this == 7979 all ..." with 👍
- lightclient
Reacted to "if this == 7979 all i need to hear is the compiler teams will use it." with 👍
- Marius van der Wijden
I don't think that even with compiler teams coming out in favor of this, would sway my mind for supporting it in H*. I like the proposal, but I still think that we should only ship critical features until we have full PQ-Support on the EL side
- lightclient
Reacted to "I don't think that even with compiler teams coming out in favor of this, would sway my mind for supporting it in H*. I like the proposal, but I still think that we should only ship critical features until we have full PQ-Support on the EL side" with 👍
- lightclient
Replying to "I don't think that e..." yeah i kinda agree with this TBH
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "I don't think that e..." isn’t PQ primarily a CL side concern, especially post frames?
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "I don't think that e..." with 👍
- lightclient
Replying to "I don't think that e..." well we need aggregation still post frames
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "well we need aggregation still post frames" with 👍
- soispoke
A réagi à "well we need aggre..." avec 👍
- Greg Colvin
Replying to "have we talked about..." Yes. Please read for information on VMs and ZK.
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Replying to "I don't think that e..." It’s also an EL concern (mostly networking) and cryptography depending on how we decide to aggregate
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "well we need aggrega..." with 👍
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "It’s also an EL conc..." with 👍
- lightclient
Reacted to "Yes. Please read for information on VMs and ZK." with 👍
- Marius van der Wijden
Replying to "I don't think that..." Yes, once PQ is done on EL, and state (sorry forgot about that), I am all for shipping all these
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Are there proposals for aggregation today?
- lightclient
no to 7923
- felipe
Reacted to "I don't think that..." with 👍
- soispoke
Répondre à "I don't think that..." https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-8288-frame-type-for-pq-sig-and-stark-aggregation/28723
- Ansgar Dietrichs
I am personally in favor of 7923, but seems like there is pretty universal client team rejection
- Francesco Risitano (Tau)
What are the implications in regard to max memory consumption based on tx gas limit for this EIP
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
besu still rejects
- lightclient
it’s a nice idea for a future fork
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Reacted to "it’s a nice idea for a future fork" with ➕
- felipe
Reacted to "it’s a nice idea ..." with ➕
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Replying to "it’s a nice idea for..." the juice is not worth the squeeze right now
- lightclient
Reacted to "the juice is not worth the squeeze right now" with ❤️
- Mega | Lambda
Reacted to "the juice is not worth the squeeze right now" with ❤️
- Csaba
Replying to "I don't think that e..." There is work on aggregation. EIP 8288. I’m doing simulations now
- Greg Colvin
Replying to "what would be the cr..." It's main point is so that you can efficiently do things with the EVM code like compile it to RISC-V, or prove it meets a spec.
- lightclient
i think proposing something several times doesn’t increase the reason to include it
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "if this == 7979 all i need to hear is the compiler teams will use it." with 👍
- Charles
Replying to "i think proposing ..." client teams are not intrinsically motivated to support it
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Replying to "I don't think that e..." Right, not proposed for Hegota so why is this a concern
- Iván | ethrex
Ethrex still declines inclusion for this fork
- Csaba
Replying to "I don't think that e..." Definitely not for Hegota :-)
- Greg Colvin
Replying to "what would be the cr..." I'll gladly write the compiler myself.
- Gary Schulte
Reacted to "if this == 7979 all i need to hear is the compiler teams will use it." with 👍
- jochem-brouwer
Heeft gereageerd op "client teams are n..." met ➕
- Marius van der Wijden
Replying to "i think proposing ..." I would be intrinsically motivated if it significantly moved the needle for users and for Ethereum as a whole, I don't see that
- lightclient
Reacted to "I would be intrinsically motivated if it significantly moved the needle for users and for Ethereum as a whole, I don't see that" with 👍
- Greg Colvin
Replying to "what would be the cr..." Claude already wrote me a Yul-to-7979 compiler.
- Csaba
We should still work on it, even if not on the Hegota timeline for all clients implementation.
- Charles
Replying to "i think proposing ..." it does, but you're not close enough to users to see it
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "i think proposing so..." with ➕
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Reacted to "We should still work on it, even if not on the Hegota timeline for all clents implementation." with 👍
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Reacted to "I would be intrinsically motivated if it significantly moved the needle for users and for Ethereum as a whole, I don't see that" with 👍
- Łukasz Rozmej
DFI from Etherex only
- Łukasz Rozmej
2xB 3xC
- Ben Adams
Delay
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
DFI
- lightclient
DFI
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
honestly, <1.3 lets just DFI and move on because the remainder won't fit in the fork anyway
- Toni Wahrstätter
Reacted to honestly, <1.3 lets ... with "👍"
- Justin Traglia
Reacted to "honestly, <1.3 lets just DFI and move on because the remainder won't fit in the fork anyway" with 👍
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Reacted to "honestly, <1.3 lets just DFI and move on because the remainder won't fit in the fork anyway" with 👍
- felipe
Reacted to "honestly, <1.3 let..." with 👍
- lightclient
is there a list of L2s that support this eip?
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "is there a list of L2s that support this eip?" with ➕
- Mega | Lambda
Reacted to "is there a list of L2s that support this eip?" with ➕
- lightclient
imo it costs us nothing, but i want to make sure there is actually demand
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "is there a list of L..." with ➕
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Replying to "is there a list of L..." Is this for L2s or alt-L1s or both?
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Replying to "honestly, <1.3 lets ..." Could ask if anyone opposes and move on but I would focus on those first too
- jochem-brouwer
I am somewhat confused why this EIP is ranked so low (EIP-8163)
- lightclient
Replying to "is there a list of L..." i gues both
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "i gues both" with 👍
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "i gues both" with ➕
- Danno Ferrin (shemnon)
0xAE is an unused opcode across L2s and alt-L1s, as far as my claude agents can tell.
- lightclient
delay
- jochem-brouwer
delay
- Csaba
delay
- Iván | ethrex
delay
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
We already chose to delay it no?
- lightclient
Replying to "We already chose to ..." but we can choose again
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Reacted to "but we can choose again" with 🤣
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
delay is fine in this case, but L2s better show up
- Csaba
Reacted to "but we can choose again" with 🤣
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "but we can choose ag..." with 🤣
- Ben Adams
delay
- felipe
Reacted to "but we can choose ..." with 🤣
- lightclient
Replying to "delay is fine in thi..." or else
- Ben Adams
Reacted to "but we can choose again" with 🤣
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Replying to "delay is fine in thi..." DADVOICE
- Toni Wahrstätter
Reacted to delay is fine in thi... with "👻"
- Enrico Del Fante (tbenr)
Reacted to "DADVOICE" with 😂
- Marius van der Wijden
Next slide
- felipe
Reacted to "DADVOICE" with 😂
- Dragan Rakita
This is not related to hard fork so anything is fine, and there is no EIP for hegota that uses this opcode.
- lightclient
i’d also like a sketch of how L2s and alt-L1s plan to avoid stepping over the top of each other in the extensions
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Reacted to "i’d also like a sketch of how L2s and alt-L1s plan to avoid stepping over the top of each other in the extensions" with 💡
- Marius van der Wijden
All DFI
- jochem-brouwer
Heeft gereageerd op "we've explicitly s..." met 🙏
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "but we can choose again" with 🤣
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "DADVOICE" with 😂
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "delay is fine in this case, but L2s better show up" with 👻
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "i’d also like a sketch of how L2s and alt-L1s plan to avoid stepping over the top of each other in the extensions" with 🧠
- Toni Wahrstätter
It would create a new edge case with BALs where the prio fee balance change wouldn't be linked to the tx index?
- jochem-brouwer
Heeft gereageerd op "It would create a ..." met ➕
- Mega | Lambda
Do we have any ballpark numbers on how 8115 affects the BAL size?
- Luis Pinto | Besu
No impact on chain, only UX change on builders. For me it’s fine to have it also
- jochem-brouwer
It also removes the possibility to fund an EOA as builder. You could insert other txs first to get some priority fees and then use this newly funded account to send. This feature would be removed in EIP-8115
- Dragan Rakita
Replying to "It would create a ne..." It can be similar to system call at the end.
- Marius van der Wijden
Replying to "Do we have any bal..." Even if its 20% it doesn't matter imo
- jochem-brouwer
Antwoord verzenden naar "It also removes th..." (these other txs are thus external txs, you fund own txs via these fees)
- Toni Wahrstätter
Reacted to It can be similar to... with "👍"
- jochem-brouwer
Antwoord verzenden naar "It also removes th..." This could be problematic for local block building I think, because now we have this nice feature to fund your account with fees of other accounts
- Toni Wahrstätter
Replying to "It would create a ne..." Hmm would i be able to use the prio fee, being the coinbase, to send a tx in the same block?
- Toni Wahrstätter
Replying to "It would create a ne..." I guess not anymore as the update happens after execution
- Piotr
Replying to "i’d also like a s..." Rouch sketch is in the EIP - the 8163 EthMag thread is proposed, at least initially. I think those adding extensions using EIP-8163 to their EVMs will have incentive to coordinate and not step on each other. Not stepping on top of Eth L1 is the main concern
- Toni Wahrstätter
Replying to "It would create a ne..." This changes BAL bahevior and is close to a system tx
- lightclient
Reacted to "Rouch sketch is in the EIP - the 8163 EthMag thread is proposed, at least initially. I think those adding extensions using EIP-8163 to their EVMs will have incentive to coordinate and not step on each other. Not stepping on top of Eth L1 is the main concern" with 👍
- lightclient
Replying to "i’d also like a sket..." makes sense
- jochem-brouwer
DFI
- Toni Wahrstätter
Reacted to i’d also like a sket... with "🧠"
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
DFI
- Dragan Rakita
Replying to "It would create a ne..." We proposed similar EIP few years ago, and when talking with builder we could have priority fee put in before last transaction in block. So last tx could use this prio fee (to send it somewhere).
- Piotr
Replying to "This is not relate..." including it in a hard fork is just a form of committment, enabling doing research into new opcodes on alt L1 without having to think about conflicts
- Toni Wahrstätter
Replying to "It would create a ne..." Doesn't matter imo. It would take away functionality and add a new edge case /system call
- lightclient
Reacted to "including it in a hard fork is just a form of committment, enabling doing research into new opcodes on alt L1 without having to think about conflicts" with 👍
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
besu had similar feels to Ben
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Ah yes I am here; agree with the points on evm bytecode readiness
- Will Corcoran
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
precompile.fast
- Trent Van Epps
- Ansgar Dietrichs
fwiw I also agree this will make sense in a future hard fork
- lightclient
when do clients expect zkevm to happen?
- lightclient
Replying to "when do clients expe..." on L1
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "when do clients expe..." maybe too broad a topic to open now here 🙂
- Toni Wahrstätter
We need them at some point but sounds like low prio for hegota
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "when do clients expect zkevm to happen?" there is a PFI for Hegota
- Gary Schulte
Replying to "when do clients expe..." optional or mandatory?
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Replying to "when do clients expe..." Optional or mandatory
- lightclient
Replying to "when do clients expe..." mandatory
- Gary Schulte
Replying to "when do clients expe..." j*?
- Dragan Rakita
Replying to "when do clients expe..." Even if it is optional, EVMification is needed for it, right?
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Replying to "when do clients expe..." the eips benefit optional proofs nodes even if mandatory proofs never ship
- lightclient
Replying to "when do clients expe..." but optional proof nodes are not a load bearing concern
- Gary Schulte
Replying to "when do clients expe..." strawmap lists as k*
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "but optional proof nodes are not a load bearing concern" with 👍
- lightclient
Replying to "when do clients expe..." so k* is probably 3.5-4 years away
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "so k* is probably 3.5-4 years away" with 👴
- lightclient
Replying to "when do clients expe..." probably can work in the other zkevm before then
- Gary Schulte
Reacted to "so k* is probably 3.5-4 years away" with 👴
- Ben Edgington
Reacted to "so k* is probably 3.5-4 years away" with 👴
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "when do clients expect zkevm to happen?" EVMfication is not required, but nice to have for simplification
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "when do clients expect zkevm to happen?" and to edge the worst cases
- Danno Ferrin (shemnon)
Wish I could stay, but I got another call.
- lightclient
Replying to "when do clients expe..." agreed
- Gary Schulte
Replying to "when do clients expe..." I think also preventing prover killer type blocks due to “mispriced” precompiles
- spencer
Or CFI both then DFI one/both post Glamsterdam?
- jochem-brouwer
Great call Maria :)
- potuz
Yeah that kinda is the definition of CFI
- Toni Wahrstätter
Yeah CFI might be fine
- potuz
CFI cause we may be forced to include them
- Csaba
I guess the way would be to argue why EIP-8372 might become relevant, making it CFI
- Toni Wahrstätter
Both are small and are reactive. Good cfi candidates
- jochem-brouwer
I think it depends on how network/market reacts
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
delay decision
- spencer
I think it was just preference for the slightly easier one
- Marius van der Wijden
I'm happy to reconsider 8372
- Marius van der Wijden
Replying to "I'm happy to recon..." (after glam hf)
- jochem-brouwer
I think we should keep EIP-8372 at least PFId to use that EIP to change the economics of the state gas introduced in Glamsterdam. We have not seen the real life effects yet
- jochem-brouwer
Antwoord verzenden naar "I think we should ..." (which is why we cannot DFI EIP-8372)
- Marius van der Wijden
This EIP seems to be an artifact of us not being happy with adding EIPs after the deadline, so authors felt to be better safe than sorry
- Maria Silva
Replying to "This EIP seems to be..." Right
- Iván | ethrex
We can reconsider
- Ben Adams
Delay
- Ansgar Dietrichs
we can also (not right now) CFI both, with the clear understanding that 8368 is the prefered option
- spencer
Reacted to "we can also (not r..." with ➕
- Marius van der Wijden
Reacted to "we can also (not r..." with ➕
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Reacted to "we can also (not right now) CFI both, with the clear understanding that 8368 is the prefered option" with ➕
- Paweł Bylica
Can't they propose just one EIP then?
- jochem-brouwer
Heeft gereageerd op "we can also (not r..." met ➕
- Piotr
Replying to "is there a list of..." both in principle, idea comes from alt-L1 (Monad).
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Reacted to "Can't they propose just one EIP then?" with ➕
- Iván | ethrex
+1 to what Dragan says, that’s the reason why we left it TBD
- Marius van der Wijden
Replying to "Can't they propose..." Then they would curb the process by changing the meaning of an EIP after it was CFId
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
EIPs are usually normative, so I think it’s not possible. Or else we could have one EIP which is conceptually multiple EIPs
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
easy for us to implement, lots of performance time gain
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Replying to "Can't they propose j..." the researching team seems to be sympathetic towards 8372 so if they feel it’s the best path why not forfeiting 8368
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "both in principle, idea comes from alt-L1 (Monad)." with 👍
- Francesco Risitano (Tau)
Bad ux for light clients
- ignacio
Reacted to "Bad ux for light clients" with 👍
- Toni Wahrstätter
It only helps builders, tbf
- soispoke
I feel like it's also mainly a builder only feature
- Anders Elowsson
Replying to "Can't they propose j..." Because we do not yet know whether we need to normalize, so we could be lucky and not need it
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "Bad ux for light clients" with 👍
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Replying to "Can't they propose j..." Ah I think the idea is that we don’t know which one makes sense
- potuz
Reacted to "It only helps builders, tbf" with 👍
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "It only helps builde..." with 👍
- Łukasz Rozmej
revisit with binary tries then we are already changing state root then
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "revisit with binary ..." with 👍
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Reacted to "revisit with binary tries then" with 👍
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Reacted to "revisit with binary tries then" with ➕
- soispoke
A réagi à "revisit with binar..." avec 👍
- ignacio
Reacted to "revisit with binary tries then we are already changing state root then" with 👍
- Karim T. (matkt)
Replying to "It only helps builde..." Not really it helps also to verify faster, as you don’t have to compute the stateroot of the block to verify
- Toni Wahrstätter
Replying to "It only helps builde..." But the one of the prev one
- Toni Wahrstätter
Replying to "It only helps builde..." In the end you have to do it once
- potuz
Replying to "It only helps builde..." How so? You need to prove the payload during the whole execution slot anyway
- potuz
Replying to "It only helps builde..." Delaying the state root should not help provers unless we allow reorgs on the CL side
- Karim T. (matkt)
Replying to "It only helps builde..." Yes one of the previous that you can do in the windows between two blocks where we are doing nothing
- Toni Wahrstätter
Builders do it thousands of time for every candidate block
- FLCL (Nethermind)
Good idea, do it in a batch with more SSZ next fork?
- spencer
Reacted to "Good idea, do it i..." with ➕
- Iván | ethrex
We are mostly in favor of the Engine API part
- Łukasz Rozmej
SSZ execution blocks is mostly based on prioritisation, scope and blast radius
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Reacted to "SSZ execution blocks is mostly based on prioritisation, scope and blast radius" with ➕
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "It only helps builde..." helping builders is btw also a valuable thing, e.g. for keeping builder decentralization viable (it’s only one factor there of several, but still)
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "We are mostly in favor of the Engine API part" engine API is different
- Karim T. (matkt)
Replying to "It only helps builde..." So imo it help for the two sides
- Francesco D'Amato
@potuz you have to prove the payload’s execution but not the state root computation (you can prove the previous one instead, which you have longer to do)
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Replying to "It only helps builde..." Delaying the state root should not help provers unless we allow reorgs on the CL side I think it helps because you can separate state proofs from evm proofs
- Francesco Risitano (Tau)
Replying to "It only helps builde..." Partial execution payload commitments help builders and don’t rug light clients
- FLCL (Nethermind)
I wish we could prove trustless lightclients convinient and useful in browser, on mobile, locally with a good PoC that would motivate to move faster toward it. May be a unique feature of a new L2 in the beginning?
- Łukasz Rozmej
Reacted to "Good idea, do it in a batch with more SSZ next fork?" with ➕
- Dustin
Generally, yeah it enables provability
- Łukasz Rozmej
should go with provable ethereum (SSZ blocks , receipts ect) in its own fork (which will be very hard to prioritize)
- lightclient
I think we should be much more concerned as clients with how few ethereum users interact with the chain trustlessly - so that’s a big reason why it is A tier for us
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "I think we should be..." with 👍
- Csaba
Reacted to "I think we should be much more concerned as clients with how few ethereum users interact with the chain trustlessly - so that’s a big reason why it is A tier for us" with 👍
- Dustin
Reacted to "I think we should ..." with 👍
- jonny (geth)
Reacted to "I think we should be much more concerned as clients with how few ethereum users interact with the chain trustlessly - so that’s a big reason why it is A tier for us" with 👍
- lightclient
Replying to "I think we should be..." it also opens the possibility of a lot of potential design spaces
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Replying to "I wish we could prov..." ambire, kohaku and freedom browser notably use embedded light clients
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "I think we should be much more concerned as clients with how few ethereum users interact with the chain trustlessly - so that’s a big reason why it is A tier for us" with 👍
- Mega | Lambda
Reacted to "I think we should be much more concerned as clients with how few ethereum users interact with the chain trustlessly - so that’s a big reason why it is A tier for us" with 👍
- FLCL (Nethermind)
Reacted to "I think we should be much more concerned as clients with how few ethereum users interact with the chain trustlessly - so that’s a big reason why it is A tier for us" with 👍
- Joss
Reacted to "I think we should ..." with 👍
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "I think we should be much more concerned as clients with how few ethereum users interact with the chain trustlessly - so that’s a big reason why it is A tier for us" ok but how do you reconcile this with DFI for SSZ blocks/receipts pureeth ect. it is basically similar argument
- FLCL (Nethermind)
Reacted to "ok but how do you reconcile this with DFI for SSZ blocks/receipts pureeth ect. it is basically similar argument" with 👍
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Reacted to "ok but how do you reconcile this with DFI for SSZ blocks/receipts pureeth ect. it is basically similar argument" with 👍
- lightclient
Replying to "I think we should be..." because SSZ is an optimization and this makes things that weren’t possible possible
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "because SSZ is an optimization and this makes things that weren’t possible possible" with 👍
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "I think we should be much more concerned as clients with how few ethereum users interact with the chain trustlessly - so that’s a big reason why it is A tier for us" not exactly
- Csaba
Reacted to "because SSZ is an optimization and this makes things that weren’t possible possible" with 👍
- Dustin
Reacted to "because SSZ is an ..." with 👍
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "I think we should be much more concerned as clients with how few ethereum users interact with the chain trustlessly - so that’s a big reason why it is A tier for us" https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7919
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "I think we should be much more concerned as clients with how few ethereum users interact with the chain trustlessly - so that’s a big reason why it is A tier for us" pureeth motivation is basically veryfication of data
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "I think we should be much more concerned as clients with how few ethereum users interact with the chain trustlessly - so that’s a big reason why it is A tier for us" and SSZing stuff is part of that
- Dustin
Replying to "I think we should ..." Yes, this can be viewed as a subset of Pureth
- ignacio
Reacted to "ok but how do you reconcile this with DFI for SSZ blocks/receipts pureeth ect. it is basically similar argument" with 👍
- Csaba
Replying to "I think we should be..." I would prefer delay and let other teams look at the prototype
- jochem-brouwer
I would like to delay, to give clients to think about this 2 weeks more (EIP-8304) It is a great opportunity
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "I would like to dela..." with ➕
- Dustin
Well it keeps being this circular thing of, oh no, don't support SSZ, can't proceed
- jochem-brouwer
Heeft gereageerd op "I think we should ..." met 👍
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "I would like to dela..." I think we would need a signal from Besu in particular that they would see a path to changing their mind and / or a concrete plan for anyone to engage with Besu and Reth about this over the next 2 weeks
- FLCL (Nethermind)
It also good as it does not break block/tx format but brings new feature. Maybe ssz fication can happen in soft way too though
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Reacted to "I think we would need a signal from Besu in particular that they would see a path to changing their mind and / or a concrete plan for anyone to engage with Besu and Reth about this over the next 2 weeks" with 💴
- potuz
These things are useless until they are not
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "These things are useless until they are not" with 👍
- Marius van der Wijden
The mountain man could still run a node
- Ansgar Dietrichs
but also it took many years until we prioritized FOCIL, so that is not in itself a reason to prioritize it in this fork
- Joss
Reacted to "These things are u..." with 👍
- lightclient
Replying to "but also it took man..." sure
- Dragan Rakita
Reacted to "but also it took many years until we prioritized FOCIL, so that is not in itself a reason to prioritize it in this fork" with ➕
- Barnabé Monnot
FOCIL also unlocks provers/decoupling throughput from local building
- Csaba
Replying to "I would like to dela..." @Zsolt Felföldi ?
- Joss
Replying to "The mountain man c..." Can't expect every user to run a node
- Dragan Rakita
Reacted to "The mountain man could still run a node" with 😂
- Marc
Reacted to "I think we should be much more concerned as clients with how few ethereum users interact with the chain trustlessly - so that’s a big reason why it is A tier for us" with 👍
- jochem-brouwer
I feel like this topic is rather complex and therefore we should give clients 2 weeks to consider this EIP again. It is a big topic and would unlock a lot of features. I feel like DFI-ing it now is too fast
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "I feel like this top..." the EIP has been in discussion for months, no?
- Csaba
Reacted to "These things are useless until they are not" with 👍
- jochem-brouwer
Antwoord verzenden naar "I feel like this t..." I must be out of the loop, I am not aware of these discussions
- Dragan Rakita
Replying to "I feel like this top..." Would be good to hear other clients if they want to nudge the discussion.
- Ben Adams
Chain get big
- Łukasz Rozmej
It is B for us (so we can include it, but not our priority), we have external contributor PR for it: https://github.com/NethermindEth/nethermind/pull/13269
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "It is B for us (so w..." with ➕
- Iván | ethrex
+1
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Could this turn into something like bloom filters
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "Could this turn into something like bloom filters" not sure what you mean
- Łukasz Rozmej
Replying to "Could this turn into something like bloom filters" I think Geth has an index based on it to improve log search
- Marius van der Wijden
Replying to "Could this turn in..." Yes, it is basically a replacement for bloom filters
- Maria Silva
Sad we couldn’t make any CFI decision 🥲
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Replying to "Could this turn into..." Like not used. I need to spend a little more time on it personally though
- soispoke
A réagi à "Sad we couldn’t m..." avec ➕
- Dragan Rakita
Replying to "Could this turn into..." This is what I am afraid, adding something that is not used in the end. And then removing it
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "Sad we couldn’t make any CFI decision 🥲" with ➕
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "Sad we couldn’t make..." I think the DFI were the correct first priority though?
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "I think the DFI were the correct first priority though?" with 👍
- soispoke
A réagi à "I think the DFI we..." avec 👍
- Greg K | Lido
Reacted to "I think the DFI we..." with 👍
- Łukasz Rozmej
Reacted to "Sad we couldn’t make any CFI decision 🥲" with ➕
- Fabio Di Fabio
DFI
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Replying to "Sad we couldn’t make..." Maybe we could optimistically pipeline implementations for certain EIPs like 7668
- Marius van der Wijden
Replying to "Could this turn in..." Ah yeah, it might be tbh. Trustlessness is definitely technology push not demand pull
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Replying to "Sad we couldn’t make..." Ie ones that seem to have unanimous support
- Maria Silva
Replying to "Sad we couldn’t make..." Right. We already had themes, so we could have done the easy DFis and easy CFIs by theme
- Zsolt Felföldi
Replying to "Could this turn into..." Bloom filters are not used because they are useless. Hence this EIP :)
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
Replying to "Sad we couldn’t make..." clients could take another pass at ranking.
- Pooja Ranjan
Reacted to "clients could take another pass at ranking." with 👍
- spencer
can we CFI all those over 2.5 haha
- Csaba
Can’t we just CFI everything 3, or 2.5+?
- Iván | ethrex
Top 3 weren’t CFI’d?
- spencer
Reacted to "Can’t we just CFI..." with 😂
- Maria Silva
No
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "No" with 👍
- Maria Silva
We decided to focus on DFI
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "Can’t we just CFI ev..." with 😂
- soispoke
A réagi à "Can’t we just CFI..." avec 😂
- Csaba
C for Consider. Let’s just consider everything highly rated.
- Will Corcoran
Love it
- lightclient
Reacted to "C for Consider. Let’s just consider everything highly rated." with ❤️
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
I think for items that are lukewarm, it would be good for folks to look into
- Toni Wahrstätter
Reacted to 12ACE39B-192E-4488-A511-2272C4381698.jpeg with "🔥"
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "12ACE39B-192E-4488-A511-2272C4381698.jpeg" with 😂
- Luis Pinto | Besu
Reacted to "Can’t we just CFI everything 3, or 2.5+?" with ➕
- soispoke
A réagi à "12ACE39B-192E-4488..." avec 😂
- Marius van der Wijden
Priority lists will continue until morale improves
- Dragan Rakita
Reacted to "Priority lists will continue until morale improves" with 😂
- Karim T. (matkt)
Reacted to "12ACE39B-192E-4488-A511-2272C4381698.jpeg" with 🌻
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Replying to "I think for items th..." I imagine that the ones that are on the fence will take up a lot of time
- Kevaundray Wedderburn
Replying to "I think for items th..." Ah yes what Ansgar said
- Toni Wahrstätter
DFI'ing feels good
- Luis Pinto | Besu
CFI round next meeting
- Iván | ethrex
Replying to "CFI round next meeti..." In what state do non DFI’d EIPs live right now?
- Ansgar Dietrichs
Replying to "CFI round next meeti..." still PFI
- wolovim
Reacted to "still PFI" with 👆
- Iván | ethrex
Reacted to "still PFI" with 👍
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
filter by outlier opinions. good idea.
- jochem-brouwer
Good point Maria, we should not discuss contents of the EIP here but make decisions. So then if there are any points directly raise them to EIP authors
- Csaba
Replying to "CFI round next meeti..." Is there a “procedural” limit on PFI state?
- Piotr
Reacted to "Good point Maria, ..." with ➕
- Pooja Ranjan
Reacted to "Good point Maria, we should not discuss contents of the EIP here but make decisions. So then if there are any points directly raise them to EIP authors" with ➕
- Luca Donno | L2BEAT
Reacted to "Good point Maria, we should not discuss contents of the EIP here but make decisions. So then if there are any points directly raise them to EIP authors" with ➕
- Iván | ethrex
Replying to "CFI round next meeti..." Why non DFI’d EIPs turn CFI automatically?
- Will Corcoran
Nice work!
- jochem-brouwer
Ansgar, great job!! Amazing progress!!🎉
- soispoke
Répondre à "Good point Maria, ..." can also be the other way around imo (EIP authors reaching out proactively)
- Justin Traglia
Reacted to "Nice work!" with 🔥
- Dragan Rakita
Reacted to "Ansgar, great job!! Amazing progress!!🎉" with 🎉
- Justin Traglia
Reacted to "Ansgar, great job!! Amazing progress!!🎉" with 🎉
- spencer
Reacted to "Ansgar, great job!..." with 🎉
- Piotr
Reacted to "Ansgar, great job!..." with 🎉
- FLCL (Nethermind)
Reacted to "ambire, kohaku and freedom browser notably use embedded light clients" with 🔥
Call summary
Targets
- •Next ACDE (2 weeks): CFI pass on top-ranked EIPs + final DFI on all delayed EIPs - 01:40:45
Decisions
- •EIP-8253 not added to Glamsterdam; to be SFI'd for Hegota (consensus in chat) - 00:19:08
- •EIP-8141 (Frame Transactions) confirmed as Hegota headliner - 00:23:06
- •DFI for Hegota: EIP-7819, EIP-7851 - 00:34:29
- •DFI for Hegota: EIP-2488, EIP-8219, EIP-8182, EIP-7645 - 00:38:42
- •DFI for Hegota: EIP-7923, EIP-8200 - 00:54:39
- •DFI for Hegota: EIP-8188, EIP-8358, EIP-8115 - 01:04:07
- •DFI for Hegota: EIP-7862 (delayed state root) - 01:21:49
- •DFI for Hegota: EIP-7807 (SSZ execution blocks) - 01:26:06
- •DFI for Hegota: EIP-8094 (blob-aware mempool) - 01:39:56
Highlights
- Hegota Scoping Dfi:
- ·DFI: EIP-7819 (set delegate instruction), EIP-7851 (code-controlled EOA delegation) - 00:34:29
- ·DFI: EIP-2488 (deprecate CALLCODE), EIP-8219 (checked arithmetic opcodes), EIP-8182 (private ETH/ERC-20 transfers), EIP-7645 (alias ORIGIN to sender) - 00:38:42
- ·DFI: EIP-7923 (linear page-based memory costing); EIP-8200 (EVMification of precompiles) - 00:54:39
- ·DFI: EIP-8188 (last written block for accounts/slots), EIP-8358 (net gas metering for account changes), EIP-8115 (batch priority fees at end of block) - 01:02:57
- ·DFI: EIP-7862 (delayed state root); may revisit post-Glamsterdam or alongside binary trie work - 01:21:49
- ·DFI: EIP-7807 (SSZ execution blocks); blast radius too high relative to near-term benefit - 01:26:06
- ·DFI: EIP-8094 (ETH/VHash blob-aware mempool); features already absorbed into sparse blob pool - 01:39:56
- Eip Proposals Hegota:
- ·EIP-8141 (Frame Transactions) formally confirmed as Hegota headliner; spec still being iterated - 00:23:06
- ·EIP-8411 (Fast Payload Broadcast): ACDE notified of upcoming PFI request; decision deferred to ACDC next week - 00:22:08
- ·EIP-8360 (TCREATE opcode): status still open; champion confirmed (Milos); decision deferred two weeks; will be included in next Forkcast ranking pass - 00:27:03
- Hegota Scoping Delayed:
- ·EIP-7979 (call/return opcodes): decision delayed 2 weeks; Solidity/Vyper compiler teams should attend next call to weigh in - 00:44:03
- ·EIP-8163 (reserve EXTENSION opcode): delayed 2 weeks; champion must gather signals from L2/alt-L1 chains before next call - 00:45:43
- ·EIP-8372 (normalized state gas limit) and EIP-8368 (static CPSB recalibration): both delayed; decision contingent on observing post-Glamsterdam demand elasticity - 01:11:10
- ·EIP-8304 (trustless log and transaction index): delayed 2 weeks; Besu/Reth open to further discussion; Zsolt to engage those teams - 01:36:44
- Fork Status And Schedule:
- ·EIP-8253 (nonce bump for non-zero storage accounts) not added to Glamsterdam; to be SFI'd for Hegota instead - 00:16:00
- ·EIP-7610 confirmed DFI'd from Glamsterdam; EIP-8253 is its replacement - 00:20:03
Action Items
- •EIP-7979 champion / call organizers - Invite Solidity/Vyper compiler teams to next ACDE to comment on EIP-7979 - 00:44:03
- •Piotr (EIP-8163 champion) - Champion to gather explicit L2/alt-L1 support signals for EIP-8163 before next call - 00:45:43
- •EL client teams - All EL teams: review top-8 Forkcast EIPs (≥2.5 avg); raise concerns async within one week so champions can respond before next call - 01:41:55
Key decisions
EIPs discussed
AI Disclaimer: Some content or metadata on EIPsInsight may be AI-inferred or automatically compiled. If you find any discrepancy, please contact us at dev@avarch.org.