Repository navigation
Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 71 Agenda #125
Description
Activity
Ref eth-clients/goerli#60 (comment) openethereum/parity-ethereum#11068 ethereum/go-ethereum#20090
- Ropsten block
6485846(Oct 2) - Görli block
1561651(Oct 30) - Rinkeby block
5435345(November) - Kovan block
14111141(December)
- Ropsten block
blake2b EIP Update
I just opened a simple language update PR for EIP-152 (BLAKE2 precompile) following the outcomes of our discussion from last call.
Note that no client implementer (that I'm aware of) has voiced support for
m_lenas an additional param, or continued to push past the call for a restriction of theroundsparameter to a lower bound. I'm interpreting the silence as consensus and moving forward, but I'll try to be available on the call in case we need to discuss further!I'd like to make a note that for EIP-1344, there was a suggestion that the EVM return a 64-bit sized value for the
CHAINIDopcode, and that suggestion was removed via ethereum/EIPs#2263 (comment) because it was found to be conflicting with some of the other uses of this parameter as described in other EIPs.If clients had made this update for EIP-1344 at my recommendation, the should revert this change and stick to the current spec of the proposal, which states that the opcode returns a 256-bit value. This does not change how the value is provided in any way, nor should it change the outcome of how it's used since Chain ID is a pre-defined parameter, but it is something to be aware of.
Reviewing the state of client implementations, only Parity and Trinity would be affected by this update.
The Istanbul meta EIP lists a couple of EIPs as accepted and hard fork block numbers are already being set, despite many of them are not final and some aren't even merged.
- EIP-152: on the last ACD call it was discussed this needs updates and clarification (update: some clarifications were added yesterday, though I'm not sure it is to the extent discussed)
- EIP-1108: still in draft mode. Is this final? Any changes expected?
- EIP-1344: there are still some discussions on a PR
- EIP-1884: still in draft mode. Is this final? Any changes expected?
- EIP-2028: still in draft mode. Is this final? Any changes expected?
- EIP-2200: still in a PR form with a couple of questions (update: there has been some updates yesterday)
EIP-1884: still in draft mode. Is this final? Any changes expected?
I don't expect any changes. Are EIP-authors expected to PR it into final? I'm not sure about the process. If I make it PR, the auto-merge bot will merge it, is that the "Right Way" to do it?
Reacted by Matt Luongo@Shadowfiend just opened a PR to flip the status on 1108. Happy to see that the mergebot knew not to merge 😊 - what's the process here?
Quick update re fuzz-testing:
For go-evmlab based
standard jsonfuzzing,- The
blake F-fuzzer has done did7.6Mtestcases on parity vs geth. - The
sstore/sloadtargeted fuzzer has done7.1Mtestcases on parity vs geth
For
libfuzzer-based fuzzing, it's not fully functional, as there's been some problems enabling Istanbul identically on both.Hive is up and running on a new server: https://hivetests.ethdevops.io/ . While in prod, there are still some bugs and snags to iron out, so might be unreliable and have some downtime as we fix things.
- The
Reviewing the state of client implementations, only Parity and Trinity would be affected by this update.
@fubuloubu I believe Parity returns
U256as per the original spec. Happy to take a deeper look if you think it's wrong. :)Reacted by El De-dog-lo@ifdefelse statement on Suggestion 1
https://gitter.im/ethereum-cat-herders/ProgPoW-review?at=5d82a0d2a38dae3a6377c6c8
original tweet storm
https://twitter.com/IfDefElse_/status/1174480889532698624
Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 71 Agenda
Agenda
a) Geth
b) Parity Ethereum
c) Aleth/eth
d) Trinity/PyEVM
e) EthereumJS
f) EthereumJ/Harmony
g) Besu
h) Turbo Geth
i) Nimbus
m) Nethermind