Add EIP: EVM Transaction Bundles #8684
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
c-new
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
eth-bot
added
e-consensus
eth-bot
changed the title
|
The commit 515eeb1 (as a parent of d7360d0) contains errors. |
EIPS/eip-7727.md
Outdated
| The `BUNDLE_TX_TYPE` has a new gas cost formula. For the `BUNDLE_TX_TYPE` to be valid, it must have enough gas to cover: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. The `BUNDLE_TX_TYPE` transaction base cost of `BUNDLE_BASE_GAS_COST`. | ||
| 2. All bytes of the `transactionList` elements as if their bytes were part of a typical transaction’s `CALL_DATA`. | ||
|
|
||
| The final gas cost of the `BUNDLE_TX_TYPE` depends on if the `transactionList`'s elements are valid transactions or not. The following logic is used on the `transactionList` elements: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. If an element is valid and can begin execution, the `BUNDLE_TX_TYPE` signer is not charged for that element’s bytes. | ||
| 2. If the element is not valid and cannot being execution, the `BUNDLE_TX_TYPE` is charged as if that element’s bytes were just `CALL_DATA`. | ||
|
|
||
| At the start of processing, the `BUNDLE_TX_TYPE`'s signer must be charged as if all inner transactions were invalid and refunded the gas for the valid transactions as each valid transaction finishes execution. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Only include the actual gas formula in the specification section. The reasoning behind it should live in the rationale section. Helps to keep the specification as small and readable as possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you mean I should have a code block instead of a verbal description? The words here are describing different parts of the gas costing logic and aren't justifications for it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A code block would definitely be fine, but it isn't necessary. I think I just misinterpreted the way you wrote this, honestly.
Instead of writing it as "it must have enough gas to cover...", I'd recommend wording it like:
The gas cost of BUNDLE_TX_TYPE is calculated as follows
BUNDLE_BASE_GAS_COSTplusFOOtimesBAR, whereFOOis zero if [...] and is seven otherwise.
Introducing the formula with "must have enough gas to cover" just doesn't sound precise enough.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I updated it! Let me know if you think it still needs work, happy to refactor again.
|
Addressed all comments and left two questions. |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
EIP for magicians post: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-for-evm-native-bundles/20322