@babyblueviper1 Your point on nonce vs inclusion proof in #133 really got to the heart of it — a per-contract nonce deduplicates but doesn’t survive a reorg, so it’s not the full answer. Digging into why led to something that feels like a genuine EVM-level gap.
Contracts can’t access txHash or log index during execution — those values simply don’t exist in the Solidity environment. So a credential generated and hashed inside the contract can’t include them, and there’s no way to make it reorg-safe from within the EVM alone. That seems like a protocol limitation worth surfacing, not just an application-layer tradeoff.
Started a discussion to see if others have run into this: Deterministic Random Number in EVM for Independent Recomputability — feels like this could become an EIP.
@TMerlini You’d hit this from the OCP consumer side too — the {chainId, instanceId, digest} pattern gets you two dimensions, but the third one (reorg-safe uniqueness inside the contract) is the one the EVM doesn’t hand you. Same gap, just seen from the receipt layer.
@HaoXuan40404 The domain-separation analysis in #130 is what kicked this whole line of thought off — really appreciated 