Saw a lot of back and forth on faster slot time (EIP-7782) and epbs (EIP-7732), so I wanted to share where I stand. First off, I want to emphasize that all the discussions I’ve seen have been in good faith, everyone wants what’s best for Ethereum. The main question is just the order of operations. This is a good problem to have! From the outside it might look messy, but that’s what public R&D looks like. We're in an open kitchen debating whether to serve steak or lobster first, the customer gets both either way, it’s just a matter of when and how.
Now speaking just for myself (not my team), I believe we should ship EIP-7732 first. Here’s why:
1.) From an engineering perspective, it makes more sense to restructure first, then shorten. Doing it the other way around is not just more engineering work, it’s not 1:1 (not linear either) but it's harder to reason about. 2.) From a testing perspective, it's simpler to test slot restructuring first and then faster slots. As we saw in Pectra, testing is the main bottleneck to shipping! 3.) From a security perspective, rolling out a larger change (like restructuring) first and then a smaller one (shortening) is often safer. Let it run on mainnet and harden before adding more complexity. 4.) From a timeline perspective, in terms of combined time, I believe (EIP-7732 → EIP-7782) is faster than (EIP-7782 → EIP-7732). We could ship 7782 just 3–4 months after 7732 if we work on both in parallel and switch to test mode as soon as 7732 lands. A short CL-only fork could get us there quickly.
That’s just my view as someone building and implementing this stuff day to day. I’m missing context in both research and the community. Ultimately the users of Ethereum should have a say, would you prefer faster slot times in Glamsterdam or a higher execution gas limit and more blob capacity? Why? I’d love to hear your thoughts
Coada validatorilor Ethereum a crescut constant din luna mai, am analizat toate vechile depozite ETH1 și noile depozite de execuție EIP-6110 din slotul 11649077 -> 11931977
Numere la nivel înalt: - Există un total de 82.529 de depozite EL noi în comparație cu 541 de depozite de date ETH1 vechi, deoarece depozitul ETH1 a fost desființat așa cum era de așteptat - Un total de 2,3M ETH depozitate prin depozitul EL - 375 de depozite EL mai mari de 32 ETH
https://launchpad.ethereum.org/en/validator-actions este criminal de subestimat. Experiența utilizatorului pentru depozitul parțial, retragere și compunere este extrem de fluidă. Felicitări uriașe echipei din spatele acestuia, dar, ca întotdeauna, fă-ți propriile cercetări.
Been digging into blocks over the past month and found something interesting: 172 blocks had no txs, 85 had no fee recipients. That’s ~5–6 per day, about the same rate as reorgs. Example: https://t.co/lw0pSAePBt Could last-minute reorgs be catching builders off guard? Anyone know more? cc @Data_Always
One month since the Pectra update. Wrote a quick script to download all the blocks since & study execution request usage. What I found across 236k slots:
- Out of 236k slots, only 30,587 blocks had any execution requests - In those blocks, there were 69,041 deposit requests, 312 withdrawal requests (why so little!), and 17,570 consolidation requests - For deposits, we saw 57,293 unique pubkeys and 2,102 unique withdrawal credentials - For withdrawals, 262 unique validator pubkeys and 100 unique source addresses - For consolidation, 3,422 unique target addresses and 3,544 self-consolidations, which looks like ~1.3% of validators consolidated