Remove specs for KZG functions - #5398
Merged
Merged
Conversation
github-actions
Bot
added
testing
jtraglia
marked this pull request as ready for review
July 21, 2026 22:20
Member
Author
|
Great progress has been made in cryptography-specs. I feel confident enough in those specs now that the KZG specs here could be removed. Keep in mind, these will always be accessible in the repository history. |
jihoonsong
reviewed
Jul 28, 2026
jihoonsong
approved these changes
Jul 29, 2026
This was referenced Aug 5, 2026
gitToki
pushed a commit
to gitToki/prysm
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 9, 2026
- Bump consensus spec tests from v1.7.0-alpha.12 to v1.7.0-beta.0, through alpha.13 and alpha.14 - alpha.13: Look up payload availability at the parent block's slot ([consensus-specs#5473](ethereum/consensus-specs#5473)) - alpha.13: Enable equivocation tracking by default, gated on the early cutoff window, required by the `should_apply_proposer_boost` fork-choice tests ([consensus-specs#5441](ethereum/consensus-specs#5441)) - alpha.13: Source KZG spec test vectors from ethereum/cryptography-specs ([consensus-specs#5398](ethereum/consensus-specs#5398)) - alpha.14: Explicitly set bid fields, including the slot, when upgrading to Gloas ([consensus-specs#5550](ethereum/consensus-specs#5550), [consensus-specs#5553](ethereum/consensus-specs#5553)) - alpha.14: Disallow proposer reorgs at epoch boundaries before Fulu ([consensus-specs#5547](ethereum/consensus-specs#5547)) - alpha.14: Refresh ethspecify references, add exceptions for named SSZ collections ([consensus-specs#5528](ethereum/consensus-specs#5528)), executable gossip validation functions ([consensus-specs#5294](ethereum/consensus-specs#5294)), and the gas limit schedule ([consensus-specs#5533](ethereum/consensus-specs#5533)) - beta.0: Reject bids whose block hash equals the parent block hash, in state transition and gossip ([consensus-specs#5594](ethereum/consensus-specs#5594), cherry-picked from OffchainLabs#17443) - beta.0: Read the parent slot from the latest block header when applying the parent payload ([consensus-specs#5554](ethereum/consensus-specs#5554)) - beta.0: Rename the PTC SSZ types to `PayloadTimelinessCommittee*` in ethspecify references ([consensus-specs#5558](ethereum/consensus-specs#5558)) - The beta.0 `minimal.tar.gz` is not published yet, so the WORKSPACE minimal hash still points at alpha.14 and will be updated once the asset lands --------- Co-authored-by: Potuz <potuz@prysmaticlabs.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I have been toying with the idea of removing the KZG (polynomial commitment) specifications for a while now. Since clients use libraries for this and do not actually implement these, I do not believe they belong in this repository. I would prefer they solely exist in the
ethereum/cryptography-specsrepository. This would be a pretty massive simplification here.