Changes for EIP-4844 proposed:
- move EIP-6493 to review: Update EIP-6493: Move to Review by etan-status · Pull Request #6947 · ethereum/EIPs · GitHub
- bump EIP-4844 to use SSZ signature scheme: Update EIP-4844: Use EIP-6493 signature scheme by etan-status · Pull Request #6948 · ethereum/EIPs · GitHub
Another open question would be whether we want to use a plain 65 byte array in EIP-4844 for the signatures, same as in the EIP-6493 example. Personally, I don’t see too much value in putting separate y/r/s components into the SSZ object, as they are always processed together (except for legacy tx which is not ssz where y can have chain id). It could also avoid the nasty byte swap (SSZ is little endian, but cryptography libs expect big endian).