EIPsInsight

Loading Experience

Preparing your insights...

Loading0%
ETM2026-06-24_006

Encrypt The Mempool #006

2026-06-24 3 decisions 494 transcript lines

Transcript

Ask about this call

Answered from this call's summary and transcript only.

AI-generated — verify against the recording.

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

Meeting chat5

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.