Repository navigation
Add EIP-7709 complexity assessment - #120
Open
LouisTsai-Csie wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
LouisTsai-Csie wants to merge 1 commit into
LouisTsai-Csie wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
LouisTsai-Csie
changed the title
jsign
reviewed
Aug 24, 2026
| | Anchor | Score (0–3) | Rationale | | ||
| |---|---:|---| | ||
| | **EVM Gas rule changes** | 1 | `BLOCKHASH` opcode gas costs now follow state access rules, accounting for cold/warm scenarios. This affects existing `BLOCKHASH` test cases but not other pre-existing scenarios. Given 1 point consider the impact should be limited. | | ||
| | **State-access ordering within opcode execution** | 2 | Only `BLOCKHASH` being impacted and now accounting for state access cost. | |
| | **New or modified transaction validity mechanisms** | 0 | No changes to transaction validity mechanisms | | ||
| | **New block / header fields** | 0 | No new block or header fields are introduced. | | ||
| | **New fork activation mechanism** | 0 | No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block. | | ||
| | **Performance risks** | 1 | The new work reduces to an `SLOAD`, which is already benchmarked and already priced; the EIP strictly raises the cost of the operation, so worst-case throughput moves in the safe direction. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't this be a 0 since all cases are already covered, and actually things are getting more expensive so "perf risk" is minimized?
| | **New block / header fields** | 0 | No new block or header fields are introduced. | | ||
| | **New fork activation mechanism** | 0 | No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block. | | ||
| | **Performance risks** | 1 | The new work reduces to an `SLOAD`, which is already benchmarked and already priced; the EIP strictly raises the cost of the operation, so worst-case throughput moves in the safe direction. | | ||
| | **Security risks** | 1 | 106x cost increase might break `BLOCKHASH` callers. Interacts with EIP-2929/BAL. "MAY" clause risks consensus divergence if warming/recording skipped. Needs targeted review and fuzz testing on state-access accounting. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is fair. Just as an extra note, I did some analysis here, and the 1 score seems fair to me.
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
2 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.
No description provided.