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

Add EIP: Incentivize Access List Provisioning #8563

Conversation

OlegJakushkin
Copy link
Contributor

To facilitate future developments of parallel data load, we need to encourage as many transactions as possible that contain as complete and valid access lists. Current access list pricing does not sufficiently incentivize their inclusion, and this EIP aims to address this gap.

OlegJakushkin and others added 4 commits May 12, 2024 01:46
To facilitate future developments of parallel data load, we need to
encourage as many transactions as possible that contain as complete and
valid access lists. Current access list pricing does not sufficiently incentivize their inclusion, and this EIP aims to address this gap.

Co-authored-by: Ben Adams <thundercat@illyriad.co.uk>
Co-authored-by: Oleg Iakushkin <oleg.jakushkin@gmail.com>
@github-actions github-actions bot added c-new Creates a brand new proposal s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-core labels May 16, 2024
@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented May 16, 2024

✅ All reviewers have approved.

@eth-bot eth-bot added e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus e-review Waiting on editor to review labels May 16, 2024
Copy link

The commit 18b28bf (as a parent of caf2c8a) contains errors.
Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label May 16, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label May 16, 2024
@eth-bot eth-bot changed the title Add EIP: Align incentives for access list provisioning Add EIP: Incentivize Access List Provisioning May 16, 2024
EIPS/eip-7704.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
EIPS/eip-7704.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
OlegJakushkin and others added 2 commits May 17, 2024 06:29
Co-authored-by: Andrew B Coathup <28278242+abcoathup@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Andrew B Coathup <28278242+abcoathup@users.noreply.github.com>
EIPS/eip-7707.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
the practical use is limited and uncommon due to the savings versus penalties involved. In order to break even for
each address included `24 storage keys` are required per address, and there is a `100 gas` saving per key at `25+`;
in contrast the penalty for including an unused key is `1900 gas`, so break-even where one key is unused is `43 keys`.\
\
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can we remove these delimiters?

Copy link
Contributor

@SamWilsn SamWilsn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please take care of the suggestions on this PR while you're in Draft. Thanks!

---
eip: 7707
title: Incentivize Access List Provisioning
description: This EIP proposes updating gas cost parameters for access lists to incentivise their use and improve transaction execution efficiency.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
description: This EIP proposes updating gas cost parameters for access lists to incentivise their use and improve transaction execution efficiency.
description: Updates gas cost parameters for access lists to incentivise their use and improve transaction execution efficiency.

Removed a bit of fluff.

While [EIP-2930](./eip-2930.md) introduced `accessLists` as a mechanism for `SLOAD`
pre-warming to reduce gas costs by informing the EVM upfront about which storage slots a transaction will access,
the practical use is limited and uncommon due to the savings versus penalties involved. In order to break even for
each address included `24 storage keys` are required per address, and there is a `100 gas` saving per key at `25+`;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Only use backticks for inline code.

@eth-bot eth-bot enabled auto-merge (squash) July 4, 2024 20:25
Copy link
Collaborator

@eth-bot eth-bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...

@eth-bot eth-bot merged commit 334471d into ethereum:master Jul 4, 2024
12 of 13 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
c-new Creates a brand new proposal e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus e-review Waiting on editor to review s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-core
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants