Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft BLAKE2b precompile EIP #131

Closed
wants to merge 21 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

tjade273
Copy link

No description provided.

@Teerasa
Copy link

Teerasa commented Oct 20, 2016

Free bitcoin to me.... Wonderful

@Souptacular
Copy link
Contributor

EIP editor here: Please tag with editor-needs-to-review when you feel it's ready to go. It is possible that the Metropolis EIPs serve the purpose of allowing Zcash header verification in Ethereum.

@chriseth: Do the proposed metro EIPs related to zk-SNARKS make this EIP unnecessary?

Also, please enable allow edits from maintainers.

@chriseth
Copy link
Contributor

@Souptacular this is unrelated to zksnarks, but zksnarks might allow for speedups here.

@Arachnid
Copy link
Contributor

Please renumber as EIP-131 and update the filename and header, and we can accept this as a draft.

EIPS/eip-9.md Outdated

### Specification

Adds a precompile at address `0x0000....0c` which accepts a variable length input interpreted as
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Cannot this be written as just 0xc?

EIPS/eip-9.md Outdated
[OUTSIZE, D_1, D_2, ..., D_INSIZE]


where `INSIZE` is the length in bytes of the input. Throws if `OUTSIZE` is greater than 64. Returns the `OUTSIZE`-byte BLAKE2b digest, as defined in [RFC 7693](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7693).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does INSIZE refer to D_INSIZE?

EIPS/eip-9.md Outdated

Gas costs would be equal to `GBLAKEBASE + GBLAKEWORD * floor(INSIZE / 32)`

In order to maintain backwards compatibility, the precompile will return `0` if `CURRENT_BLOCKNUM < METROPOLIS_FORK_BLKNUM`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What does return `0` means? Call fails? Provided output memory is not touched?

I assume it is just a non-existent address before METROPOLIS_FORK_BLKNUM and therefore it s a regular failure.

@axic
Copy link
Member

axic commented Apr 23, 2017

I think this should be updated with the missing fields from eip-X.md.

@Arachnid
Copy link
Contributor

This is a courtesy notice to let you know that the format for EIPs has been modified slightly. If you want your draft merged, you will need to make some small changes to how your EIP is formatted:

  • Frontmatter is now contained between lines with only a triple dash ('---')
  • Headers in the frontmatter are now lowercase.

If your PR is editing an existing EIP rather than creating a new one, this has already been done for you, and you need only rebase your PR.

In addition, a continuous build has been setup, which will check your PR against the rules for EIP formatting automatically once you update your PR. This build ensures all required headers are present, as well as performing a number of other checks.

Please rebase your PR against the latest master, and edit your PR to use the above format for frontmatter. For convenience, here's a sample header you can copy and adapt:

---
eip: <num>
title: <title>
author: <author>
type: [Standards Track|Informational|Meta]
category: [Core|Networking|Interface|ERC] (for type: Standards Track only)
status: Draft
created: <date>
---

@axic
Copy link
Member

axic commented Nov 25, 2018

Closes #152.

@Souptacular
Copy link
Contributor

Please contribute to the discussion on this forum: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/blake2b-f-precompile/3157/6

@axic
Copy link
Member

axic commented May 16, 2019

#2024 tries to merge this PR. If that is merged, this one should be closed.

@axic
Copy link
Member

axic commented Jun 24, 2019

Since the author has not responded for over a year and there are two successor EIPs (#2024, #2129), I suggest to close this.

@axic
Copy link
Member

axic commented Jun 27, 2019

It seems to be that some of the original proposers converged around #2129 being the successor EIP. Closing this to avoid confusion. @tjade273 if you feel otherwise, please do not hesitate to leave a message here so we can reopen it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants