Update EIP-8272: pin RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS to 0x...8272 - #12068
Open
AnkushinDaniil wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Update EIP-8272: pin RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS to 0x...8272#12068AnkushinDaniil wants to merge 1 commit into
AnkushinDaniil wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
github-actions
Bot
added
c-update
Collaborator
File
|
Contributor
Author
|
The eipw failures are pre-existing: every flagged line (16, 26, 36, 62, 165, 186, 194, 204) is identical to master and untouched by this PR, which changes only the constant on line 43. |
|
The commit 86fae90 (as a parent of da01a72) contains errors. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESSis a consensus constant twice over: it is the account the activation transition writes, and it is the account whose storage every reference is checked against, so two clients on different values disagree on which transactions are valid.Both implementations I know of independently chose the address equal to the EIP number, matching
EXPIRY_VERIFIER = 0x…8141in EIP-8141. This PR writes that value down so a devnet can be interoperable by reading the spec rather than by reading another client's source.RECENT_ROOT_CODEis deliberately leftTBDhere: unlikeNONCE_MANAGER_CODEin EIP-8250 it is a real write path, not a storage namespace, so its bytecode is a design decision for the authors rather than something to infer from implementations that currently handle the write natively. Happy to follow up with a candidate if that is wanted.FORK_TIMESTAMPis likewise leftTBD, since it is decided by fork scheduling.