Proposal to add EIP-3322 in London

[wjmelements]

EIP-3322 can be discussed as another alternative to EIP-3298 and EIP-3300. It should be discussable in the same 15-minute time frame.

ethereum/EIPs#3322

[timbeiko]

@wjmelements added to the next call's agenda given how little time we had to discuss today: https://github.com/ethereum/pm/blob/master/README.md#acd-108-march-19-2021

[shemnon]

Adding 3 new opcodes and a 5th item to track with every account is too much for London. If it were to target Shanghai we could discuss the merits, but the timeframe makes this a non-starter because of complexity.

[wjmelements]

Adding 3 new opcodes and a 5th item to track with every account is too much for London. If it were to target Shanghai we could discuss the merits, but the timeframe makes this a non-starter because of complexity.

Please respect the discussions-to url https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-3322-efficient-gas-storage/5470

[shemnon]

If I were to discuss the merits that would be a good target, but this is covering the question as to whether or not it should be considered for London, which is orthogonal to the actual content of the EIP.

[wjmelements]

I was able to discussing timing in discussions-to URLs in the past; I suspect you might also have such a capability.

…

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 1:02 PM Danno Ferrin ***@***.***> wrote: If I were to discuss the merits that would be a good target, but this is covering the question as to whether or not it should be considered for London, which is orthogonal to the actual content of the EIP. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#266 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGDGVP5AKOA3G653TU3MT3TDZRUXANCNFSM4YT2D3CQ> .

[timbeiko]

Closing this because on ACD 108 (#288) it was deemed too complex for London by several client teams (and had some teams fully opposed). See conversation at 42:35. Other relevant conversations at 29:23, 30:52, 37:17 and 40:36.

[tuanggolt]

open

[timbeiko]

@tuanggolt do you have a reason to re-open this issue?