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

Reject BLOCKHASH #114

Open
chfast opened this issue May 15, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Reject BLOCKHASH #114

chfast opened this issue May 15, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@chfast
Copy link
Member

chfast commented May 15, 2024

The EIP-2935: Serve historical block hashes from state possibly modified the BLOCKHASH instruction and provides enhanced alternative in form of a system contract.

Considering there is going to be better way for accessing block hashes the BLOCKHASH instruction should be rejected in EOF.

Pros

  • single way of accessing block hashes
  • BLOCKHASH instruction is weird
  • the less instructions the better

Cons

  • BLOCKHASH instruction provides uniform way of accessing this information across EVM chains (not every chain may have the system contract, or have it before EOF)
  • BLOCKHASH is cheaper (at least before Verkles)
  • BLOCKHASH is smaller code
@jochem-brouwer
Copy link
Contributor

I do not understand the motivation here. The only way I see how BLOCKHASH has changed is that there now is a bigger window to lookup hashes. If we remove it then you have to do this system call which is definitely more expensive than BLOCKHASH.

@chfast
Copy link
Member Author

chfast commented May 17, 2024

The goal is to remove obsolete/deprecated features of EVM in EOF so the EOF is simpler.

@chfast
Copy link
Member Author

chfast commented May 22, 2024

If the decision is "no change" we should still write some EIP "things considered" section.

@chfast chfast self-assigned this May 22, 2024
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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants