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

Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 112 Agenda #302

Closed
timbeiko opened this issue Apr 23, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 112 Agenda #302

timbeiko opened this issue Apr 23, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@timbeiko
Copy link
Contributor

timbeiko commented Apr 23, 2021

ACD 112: April 30, 2021

Meeting Info

Agenda

  1. London Updates
    1. EIP-3529 Proposal to add EIP-3529 to London #306
    2. EIP-3238 delay Proposal to include EIP-3238 (diff bomb) in London #256 (comment)
    3. EIP-3541 Proposal to include EIP-3541 in London #307
    4. Aleut status & next steps
    5. Infrastructure Readiness Breakout Room Breakout-room discussion #8 (London Infrastructure Readiness) #308
    6. Block Numbers London Timing #245 (comment)
      • Can decide next call and still be good w.r.t. timelines
  2. Other Discussion Items
@axic
Copy link
Member

axic commented Apr 28, 2021

Would like to propose #307 for discussion.

@timbeiko
Copy link
Contributor Author

@axic added, but FYI we decided on the last ACD to keep London as lean as possible. I strongly encourage you to try and get buy in from client teams prior to the call if possible given that this is already very late for discussion about inclusion in London. It would be great if they could +1 it on the #307 issue for clarity.

@AlexeyAkhunov
Copy link
Contributor

AlexeyAkhunov commented Apr 29, 2021

@timbeiko This has been in the works for a few weeks to clarify the "next steps", however what is considered for the first hard fork is basically this:

After block.number == HF1_BLOCK new contract creation (via create transaction, CREATE or CREATE2 instructions) results in an exceptional abort if the code's first byte is 0xEF.

EDIT: And there IS certain urgency in this proposal, even if for the purely technical reasons that might not be appreciated unless you fully read through 2 EIPs (3540 and 3541).

@timbeiko
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closed in favor of #309

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

3 participants