EIP-XXX: Transient programs using no-destination transactions

EIPs
, , , ,
1

This is a draft of a draft; bear with me.

Gist

No-destination transactions (with to=='') to have:

  • ADDRESS of the EOA (same as from field);
  • no extra gas use.

Compare to current:

  • ADDRESS nonced - different on every execution;
  • 32000 gas paid (G_txcreate), with justification in YP: “Paid by all contract-creating transactions after the Homestead transition.”

Why this change?

  • Allows “chaining” multiple transactions into one, with a bit of EVM bytecode as glue.
  • No-destination does not equate contract-creating: see “transient programs” post and lll-multisend program linked therein.

Why this post?

Soliciting critique on why this is a bad idea. I’m partial and blind to the obvious flaw(s).

Provenance

Publicly mentioned as OT here. Privately for a year or so.

Been thinking this is how it’s going to work since PoC3. :confused:

2

Placeholder comment for things-to-consider.

Impact on CREATE:

  • must still use gas (G_create in YP);
  • must still mince the nonce to obtain target address; including multiple CREATEs within a single transient program.

Impact on SSTORE:

  • must not persist on exiting call frame, or revert immediately: would result in EOA with state otherwise.

No-destination call from within existing contract, or nested within another transient program:

  • should already be impossible: can’t place an empty item on the stack to be used as argument to call.