-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 326
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
Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 139 Agenda #528
Comments
Can i signup to follow up EIP5081, addressing early feedback |
Just throwing in Goerli/Prater: eth-clients/goerli#98 - FYI Edit: Are we going to rebrand Prater to Goerli? (Or Boerli? 😆) |
@xinbenlv have there been substantive changes or progress since the last call? Because of our limited time, we try and limit discussions to significant updates for EIPs. |
Got it!
@timbeiko could you help us assess if such progress/changes are consider substantive enough for taking a timeslot in the CoreDev meeting? To make such progress, I am anticipate we need another 2weeks, how about we push down 2 weeks to the Meeting 140? |
Yeah, I think it makes sense to push it 2 weeks, so people also have a chance to review the progress prior to the call. I suggest opening an |
Want to make sure EL clients have taken a look at this engine API method to deduplicate execution payloads between CL and EL |
May I have a quick discussion on EIP-5027: Remove the limit on contract code size (https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-5027.md)? It should not take too much time as the major code is done and tested via
This can help us to clear further hurdles of including the EIP and prepare for more comprehensive tests. |
Hello! I can give a brief description (and answer questions) on a suggested EIP-4844 change which significantly reduces the transaction/block verification cost for blobs/commitments using KZG proofs (ethereum/EIPs#5088). |
@qizhou has this been discussed on the R&D discord already? Looking at the EthMagicians thread it seems like this could be contentious and getting async feedback may be a good way to start. |
Sure. Thanks. I have initiated the discussion in execution-dev channel. |
Thanks @qizhou! It seems there is appetite to discuss this on the call, so I've added it to the agenda :-) |
@asn-d6 @qizhou @PeterCCLiu friendly heads up that given the Ropsten issue we saw today, we may not have time to get to non-merge topics during the call. If we have time at the end, we can probably have 1-2 minutes per topic, but if you'd rather move to the next call to not have to sit through 90 minutes of merge stuff before, happy to do that too. |
Sure! I would move EIP-5027 to the next call so that we have more time to discuss it. Thanks for letting us know ahead of the current situation. |
I'd be happy to listen anyway. If we dont have much time I can talk in the next call :) |
closed in favor of #538 |
Meeting Info
Agenda
getPayloadBodiesByRangeV1
to #146 execution-apis#218The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: