Update EIP-7702: adjust tx validity #8840
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
github-actions
bot
added
c-update
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
eth-bot
previously approved these changes
Aug 30, 2024
eth-bot
approved these changes
Aug 30, 2024
This was referenced Aug 30, 2024
|
Please see #8845 -- I didn't mean for this PR to automatically merged and it has been reverted. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The past few weeks we've been discussing validity conditions for 7702 transactions. Originally @rakita added the decoding limits for auth list items in #8746. Now we're looking at further constraining validity in #8833 to disallow chain ids other than zero or the current chain's id.
My philosophy here is 1) tx validity should be as simple as possible to ascertain and 2) we should retain as much similarity across tx types as possible.
The motivation for 1) is that tx originators are incentivized to not send junk authorizations with their txs, therefore they won't. What's the point of adding more constraints into the protocol when they aren't necessary?
For 2), I believe it's extremely important to follow existing conventions when possible. If every single tx type is designed as an ornate protocol fixture by core devs of that era, we will have a mess of formats that are extremely difficult to reason about as a whole or onboard new developers to understanding. Of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't improve the status quo when possible (see: separating chain id back out from
vvalue), but unless the benefit is significant, let's not deviate from other tx formats.