ETM2026-06-24_006
Encrypt The Mempool #006
2026-06-24 3 decisions 494 transcript lines
Transcript
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
- Anthony
Reacted to "https://github.com/e..." with 👍
- Loring
Can you pls share the link to that Github issue?
- Justin Florentine (Besu)
- Boma
Replying to "Can you pls share th..." https://github.com/jflo/execution-specs/pull/1#discussion_r3410011220
Call summary
Decisions
- •Key release fee to be treated as separate from gas in the spec; wallet-layer responsibility for fee accounting - 00:23:31
- •Probabilistic front-running optionality accepted as out-of-scope for Lucid; no protocol-level fix possible without threshold encryption - 00:33:03
- •Optionality deal-breaker question to be escalated to ACD for CFI determination - 00:36:39
Highlights
- Kurtosis Devenv:
- ·Kurtosis sandwich-attack demo stack built against Fusaka; Glamsterdam/ePBS not yet stable enough to target - 00:16:05
- Cl Spec Progress:
- ·Matt from Lodestar interested in joining; targeting next call in two weeks - 00:02:41
- ·Lucid PM repo created (jflo/lucid-pm) to track missing CL specs, PRs, and implementation gaps - 00:03:12
- ·Boma to draft CL spec skeleton: SSZ containers, inclusion list, payload bid extension, LucidKey votes — standalone pieces only, pending EL decryption flow stabilization - 00:04:36
- ·Erigon (Mark) willing to review CL spec drafts and attempt implementation given Erigon 3 runs both EL and CL - 00:09:38
- Key Release Fee Design:
- ·Key publication fee mechanics unclear in spec: fee reduces gas headroom but is not itself a gas fee; needs cleaner separation and documentation - 00:19:08
- ·Consensus: treat key release fee as a separate object from gas; wallets responsible for accounting, may require new RPC for estimation - 00:23:31
- ·Key release fee is orthogonal to bundling; factoring out bundles to a separate EIP won't simplify key publication fee handling - 00:29:51
- Optionality And Lucid Design:
- ·Probabilistic front-running via self-key withholding is unsolvable without threshold encryption; top-of-block fees and bundling are the only current mitigations - 00:33:03
- ·Builder optionality (via FOCIL-style PTC vote wiggle room) is partially addressable: penalizing equivocating PTC votes would reduce exploitability - 00:37:50
- ·Whether optionality is a deal-breaker for Lucid CFI is a question that must go to ACD - 00:36:39
- ·Lucid cannot be upgraded to threshold encryption if/when it matures — a new scheme would be required from scratch - 00:48:58
- Threshold Encryption Readiness:
- ·No threshold encryption scheme currently meets Ethereum's requirements: post-quantum security, low setup cost, scalable committee size, bulk decryption support - 00:51:22
- ·Ethereum Foundation cryptography team monitoring threshold encryption research; Benedict's requirements list exists and will be shared - 00:53:21
Action Items
- •Loring + CL contributors - Explore up to $10K ShutterDAO0X36 bounty for CL spec work; need help defining success criteria - 00:13:09
- •Justin Florentine - Rewrite key publication fee section of EIP-8184 for clarity; coordinate with Anders - 00:30:32
- •Justin Florentine - Discuss builder optionality and PTC equivocation penalties with Potuz - 00:43:19
- •Gottfried Herold - Share Benedict's Ethereum threshold encryption requirements list in Telegram - 00:53:21
Key decisions
Key release fee to be treated as separate from gas in the spec; wallet-layer responsibility for fee accounting
The key release fee should be treated as a separate object from gas, and wallets are responsible for accounting for it.Probabilistic front-running optionality accepted as out-of-scope for Lucid; no protocol-level fix possible without threshold encryption
Lucid will not address probabilistic front-running optionality, as it requires threshold encryption, which is not currently possible.Optionality deal-breaker question to be escalated to ACD for CFI determination
The question of whether optionality is a deal-breaker for Lucid CFI will be escalated to ACD for determination.