Thank you, your solution is not contradictory, but what is a problem with using an authorization indicator like 0xef0101 to identify a cancelled private key eoa. Identifying it doesn’t significantly increase client workload, while reducing one state access step instead of checking the system contract and further reducing 32 bytes of state needed for timestamp writing, thus reducing user costs. No new state fields or precompiled contracts were introduced; it was all just a one-byte change to the authorization indicator.
If this update is intended to allow a delay period, we could also have an EOA use 7702 and set parameters on it. Once the valid period has elapsed, we can call the update function via code and remove the status used for marking to receive a refund.
I also acknowledge that the solution uses more complex in client implementation, but it covers more use cases for both EOA private key cancellation and contracts that want minimal code deployment. These two could be separated into two different solutions, but I found a unified solution for them and suggest that it should be done this way for overall optimization, and it also reduces some cost for end users during use.
The ideas regarding delegation cancellation and minimum code for contracts have already been proposed, therefore, I will not open any new PR, but will only provide minor technical details to improve them.
The execution flow of the code I have presented here, I also want to know the potential limitations of this design