Thanks for the info - @axic Do you plan to push that further?
NONREENTRANT opcodes EIP for reentrancy protection opcodes by charles-cooper · Pull Request #8543 · ethereum/EIPs · GitHub
I will bring to attention my detailed reasons for why EIP-7547, Inclusion Lists, should be taken off consideration for Pectra and the roadmap. It at best provides a false sense of censorship resistance and at worst creates another MEV market that heavily favors centralization due to trust issues and creates opportunities for sabotage.
The only way to make the builder market less centralized is to kill the private order flow integration through (1) education and (2) maximally easy to use, actually decentralized frontends. Telegram bots, Uniswap X, Metamask all exist to extract value from you and your participation in them only strengthens their position to negotiate with builders and undercut validators. The other way is to add better anonymity support to the protocol so anonymous builders can exist, but anonymity has never been a priority for Ethereum.
Lettuce not rush an anti-feature that has extremely debatable assumptions of future ecosystem behaviour, a heavy dev footprint and a centralizing effect.
I would like to +1 on 7212 – feels like the easiest / low hanging fruit to boost smart account adoption
1 Like
Additional proposed EIPs for Pectra
Update EIP-7600: Update eip-7600.md by timbeiko · Pull Request #8846 · ethereum/EIPs · GitHub
Feedback
Reth
[Copied from Eth R&D Discord]
EIP-7623: Increase calldata cost
We think it makes sense to increase the calldata cost for actors using calldata as DA to nudge them to use blobs instead. The change is relatively small as well, so we think it makes sense to include this in Pectra.
EIP-7742: Uncouple blob count between CL and EL
It makes sense to have this configuration live in a single place, and allows us to increase blob count without changes to EL in the future. The change is small, although a bit larger than EIP-7623. We’re supportive of including this in Pectra.
RIP-7212: Precompile for secp256r1 Curve Support
We’re excited about adding this precompile. Reth already has a working implementation of the RIP, so we’d be supportive of including this in Pectra, but we are also sensitive to the fact that not all client teams may have this implemented, and are OK with not including it in Pectra if others feel it adds too much extra work.
In summary :
- EIP-7623 : Strongly supportive of inclusion in Pectra
- EIP-7742 : Strongly supportive of inclusion in Pectra
- RIP-7212 : Supportive of inclusion in Pectra, if time permits
EF JavaScript team
[Copied from ethereum/pm]
Some statement from the EF JavaScript team on the proposed EIP additions and EIP changes (not sure if we have someone joining the call today):
CL Request additions (so all under “Encoding changes”, requests root → flat hash, flat encoding (no RLP), signature validity checks):
We are not sure if we have considered all eventual side effects here (e.g. is a flat encoding flexible enough for future request types?), but generally think these changes make sense.
EIP-7623: Increase calldata cost
General support for the idea, no opinion formed if the specific EIP is the optimal way of doing that.
EIP-7742: Uncouple blob count between CL and EL
Supportive.
EIP-7762: Increase MIN_BASE_FEE_PER_BLOB_GAS
Undecided, no consensus.
RIP-7212 (secp256r1 Curve) + SSZ EIPs
For the Pectra HF we think we have reached the tipping point where the complexity of the fork starts to outweight the benefits of having “just one fork”, this can already be felt on “getting everyone togehter” on new testnet versions, having all EIPs properly tested (already for the testnets),…
We therefore do not support the addition of any mid-size-or-larger EIPs (RIP-7212 + SSZ EIPs in this category) to the Pectra HF, independent of the usefulness of the respective EIP. In case that there might be a non-Verkle focused HF after Pectra this next HF can then be a candidate to combine these kind of EIPs, judging by experience additional similarly sized EIPs will likely join “naturally” for this fork. 
Nethermind
[Copied from ethereum/pm]
Nethermind’s View:
EIP-7623: Increase calldata cost
Strongly supportive for inclusion in Pectra.
EIP-7742: Uncouple blob count between CL and EL
Strongly supportive for inclusion in Pectra…
EIP-7762: Increase MIN_BASE_FEE_PER_BLOB_GAS
Not discussed internally.
RIP-7212 (secp256r1 Curve)
Supportive for inclusion in Pectra. We need to verify benchmarks for this precompile and assess gas pricing.
SSZ EIPs
Supportive, but not in Pectra fork.
CL Request additions
We think this change makes sense.
3 Likes
As the scope of Pectra is being discussed for proposed for inclusion EIPs, we should consider the impact of a potential pivot of Fusaka from Verkle.
This may change the priority of either proposed for inclusion EIPs or EIPs not yet included in devnets (e.g. EOF, PeerDAS) as they could be considered for Fusaka instead.
This could reduce the scope of Pectra and reduce the risk by making Pectra easier to test.
1 Like
Thanks for flagging! This came up on today’s call, see the notes here.
1 Like