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

Update EIP-7709: specify how all system contracts should behave post-verkle #8697

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

gballet
Copy link
Member

@gballet gballet commented Jun 28, 2024

Change the wording to specify that when executing system contracts, clients should either prefer direct updates or implement code-filtering.

@gballet gballet requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner June 28, 2024 14:57
@gballet gballet marked this pull request as draft June 28, 2024 14:57
@github-actions github-actions bot added c-update Modifies an existing proposal s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-core labels Jun 28, 2024
@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented Jun 28, 2024

✅ All reviewers have approved.

@eth-bot eth-bot changed the title eip-7709: specify how all system contracts should behave post-verkle Update EIP-7709: specify how all system contracts should behave post-verkle Jun 28, 2024
EIPS/eip-7709.md Outdated
@@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ However the entire semantics and after effects of the `SLOAD` operation needs to
* `SLOAD` after effects on the slot (warming the slot)
* `SLOAD` accesses added to execution witnesses if Verkle ([EIP-6800](./eip-6800.md) and [EIP-4762](./eip-4762.md)) is activated

System contracts execution is no longer favored over direct state updates. It it considered a protocol violation if an alternate network or testnet activates [EIP-4788](./eip-4788.md), EIP-2935, [EIP-7002](./eip-7002.md), or any other eip using system contracts, without deploying the corresponding contract.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should we move this line in 6800? this is just one such system contract

EIPS/eip-7709.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@gballet
Copy link
Member Author

gballet commented Sep 19, 2024

Redundant with other updates to the spec that were already merged. Closing.

@gballet gballet closed this Sep 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
c-update Modifies an existing proposal s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-core
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants