Update EIP-7748: fix namings

[jsign]

This PR fixes:

• A phase naming which was referring to a phase that doesn't exist (in the final proposed version of the EIP).
• A rename of the BasicDataPhase, since as mentioned by @gabrocheleau it might create some confusion since the semantics of BasicData are different in VKT.

[eth-bot]

✅ All reviewers have approved.

[jsign]

With @gabrocheleau, we decided to rename it AccountDataPhase since BasicDataPhase is a bit off, considering that in VKT, it usually leaves out the code-hash (which, in case of the migration, is also moved).

We'd like at least one extra approval for this renaming (or new suggestion!) from another author.

cc @gballet @g11tech @tanishqjasoria

(Note: avoiding switching from Draft to avoid automerge)

[gballet]

LGTM. I actually wonder if AccountPhase wouldn't be better, since "account data" could be interpreted as "account storage".

[jsign]

LGTM. I actually wonder if AccountPhase wouldn't be better, since "account data" could be interpreted as "account storage".

Thing is that AccountPhase mentions Account. In case of smart-contract accounts, Account means "everything" (header + storage).

I agree that AccountData still doesn't feel quite right. We can keep thinking and come up with something better in the future.

[eth-bot]

All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...