Skip to content
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 204 #1253

Open
timbeiko opened this issue Jan 17, 2025 · 10 comments
Open

Execution Layer Meeting 204 #1253

timbeiko opened this issue Jan 17, 2025 · 10 comments

Comments

@timbeiko
Copy link
Contributor

timbeiko commented Jan 17, 2025

Meeting Info

Agenda

@axic
Copy link
Member

axic commented Jan 17, 2025

I'd like to put EIP-7823 on the agenda. Either me or @rodiazet will do an introduction.

@timbeiko
Copy link
Contributor Author

@axic are you looking for feedback or to propose it for inclusion? If it's only feedback, we can have it at the end of the call assuming time permits. If you'd like to formally have it considered for the next fork, can you please open a PR to the fork Meta EIP with some context as well? Here's an example: ethereum/EIPs#9163

@axic
Copy link
Member

axic commented Jan 17, 2025

@timbeiko we want to go for an initial temperature check.

Proposed it for Fusaka here: ethereum/EIPs#9251. The change itself is fairly small, so could fit, if there's consensus. If not for Fusaka, we'd like it for the next.

@kevaundray
Copy link

kevaundray commented Jan 27, 2025

I would like to discuss the hardware and bandwidth requirements, set out here: ethereum/EIPs#9270

  • Wanted to confirm that we would create a new EIP for every fork or whenever the specs change
  • Call for finalization on the specs and say what the numbers are

@Marchhill
Copy link

Hey @timbeiko I'd like to propose EIP-7793 and EIP-7843, made a PR for Fusaka here: ethereum/EIPs#9276

@fredriksvantes
Copy link
Contributor

fredriksvantes commented Jan 28, 2025

Re the "audits overview" on the agenda; reports have been uploaded here: https://github.com/ethereum/audits/tree/master/Pectra

What's worth noting is that we ran the audits after one another, and fixes were implemented between each audit, which means that a finding done by Blackthorn was likely fixed by the time Dedaub started their review, and so on.

The audits took place in this order: 1. Blackthorn, 2. Dedaub, 3. PlainShift and then finally 4. Sigma Prime

Daejun from a16z also formally verified this at the same time, using halmos

@abcoathup
Copy link

Eth Magicians: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/all-core-devs-execution-acde-204-january-30-2025/22594

@timbeiko
Copy link
Contributor Author

timbeiko commented Jan 29, 2025

@axic @kevaundray I added both of your topics to the agenda. @fredriksvantes thanks for sharing the additional context!

@Marchhill, I also added your PR to the agenda, but before we get into the weeds of Fusaka planning, there are a couple important things we need to discuss:

  1. We previously agreed to not SFI more EIPs in forks until the current `SFI' EIPs have been implemented on devnets (Update EIP-7723: CFI/SFI & Devnets EIPs#9126). For Fusaka, this means having EOF + PeerDAS running on devnets smoothly.
  2. The Pectra Retrospective, which already includes proposals to change how we think about hard fork scoping.

We can start this conversation on this week's call, but I want to make sure we give everyone the time to chime in on EthMagicians before making final decisions.

@jflo
Copy link

jflo commented Jan 29, 2025

Would like to just have this mentioned as a reminder:

RPC Standards Call 0 on Feb 3rd.

#1261

@rolfyone
Copy link

Just fyi raised eth-clients/holesky#120 and eth-clients/sepolia#99 which should cover off on the fields other than the fork epoch for electra for sepolia and holesky.
Sepolia would require 97,98,99 to be electra ready IMO
Holesky would need 118,119,120 to be electra ready.
Theres one of those on each dependent on the final testnet dates, the rest cover other changes such as electra parameters and constant rename / removal

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants