I’d like to propose EIP-1153 for inclusion in Cancun. I’ve updated the candidate thread with the latest status. Further progress on EIP-1153 is blocked by marking it for inclusion, allowing it to be part of devnets and giving client developers a reason to finish code reviews and merge the outstanding PRs.
And some meta commentary: the main reason EIP-1153 is not in Shanghai is that EOF was added in December and removed a month later. I think this is a failure of prioritization that deserves more discussion. I’d suggest this time around not committing to anything else (other than EIP-4844) for which the spec is not finalized, and EOF is still figuring out parts of the spec (e.g. just a week ago DELEGATECALL into legacy code was brought up).
To increase Layer 2 adoption we need lower cost transactions, hence the need for EIP4844.
Shapella was focused on withdraOWLs . Dencun (Cancun + Deneb) should focus on blobspace .
The timeline for Cancun should be based on EIP4844 readiness. e.g. May/June.
Any additional EIPs should have finalized specs and not add significant delay (e.g. more that 1-2 months) to the delivery of Cancun, otherwise they should be candidates for inclusion in the Prague upgrade later in 2023 or early 2024.
EIPs to add to Cancun in addition to EIP4844
Assume finalized EIP spec and EIPs don’t add significant delay to delivery of Cancun.
EIP1153: Transient storage opcodes
EIP2537: Precompile for BLS12-381 curve operations
EIP2537 or a new implementation for a BLS precompile would be great in order to make it easier for decentralized off-chain networks Lido or Gelato to utilize BLS for threshold signatures.
On ACDE159, we agreed to discuss potential Cancun EIPs on the next call, scheduled for April 27, 14 UTC.
I’ll keep track of EIPs proposed for the upgrade in the first post of this thread. If you’d like to propose an EIP and it’s not part of the list, please reach out to me. You can add the cancun-candidate tag as well to make it easy for people to see all proposed EIPs’ threads on a single page here
The minimal parts for Cancun should be EIP-6493 SSZ signature scheme, and EIP-6475 SSZ Optional definition. Not deciding on how these should look for Cancun makes it difficult to change in the future.
EIP-6465 and EIP-6404 / EIP-6466 can be addressed later, the overhead is same whether done in Cancun or in E-Fork.
I’d like to propose inclusion of EIP 5656 (MCOPY) in Cancun. I don’t think there is any contention about the spec or its usefulness, it’s easy to understand and implement, it would enable better codegen for batch memory copies in compilers, and it already has an open PR to implement in geth.
Just wanted to voice my support of for inclusion of EIP-2537 in Cancun, would give much greater first party support for BLS. Using the alt-bn128 precompiles for BLS currently feels a little hacky.