-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.7k
Add EIP: Block-Level Access Lists #9580
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
Conversation
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
The commit ecad749 (as a parent of 4c8e46e) contains errors. |
For parallelization would be better if read and write are distinguished (if in write list doesn't need to be in read list as SSTORE both reads and writes) This is as multiple txs that only read can happen at same time; is only ones that write that enforce a specific ordering of tx order |
This is already done by having an optional second value for the tuple of values. If there is only one, it's a read. This is early design though and not something I've spent much time further optimizing for practical and worst case use. |
Ah ok, I didn't pick that up |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
List
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I love the work on this! Left some lengthy thoughts. In general, I think that besides storage slots we also need to track accesses to balances of accounts, and we also need to know if new contracts are created. Such that if Tx A creates contract Z, then if Tx B calls Z it thus has to "wait" before Tx A has executed. The nice property of https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-6780 is that we know that if a contract is creatd, it will now stay there, and can't be deleted anymore 😄 👍
General other question: is there also a discussion chat about this topic?
Co-authored-by: g11tech <develop@g11tech.io>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Implementation of parallelization is mentioned in your motivation but not detailed in specification.
Co-authored-by: Ignacio Hagopian <jsign.uy@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ignacio Hagopian <jsign.uy@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ignacio Hagopian <jsign.uy@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ignacio Hagopian <jsign.uy@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some more comments! 😄 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Two comments on the latest changes 😄 👍
Great, incorporated all the feedback - thanks everyone! Would be great to have it merged now. It's ready for a first draft. |
There was a problem hiding this 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...
No description provided.