Berachain Bectra Annotations by rezzmah · Pull Request #1 · berachain/consensus-specs

rezzmah · 2025-04-08T07:27:16Z

The PR annotates the pectra specification with the relevant changes for Berachain.

Signed-off-by: Rez <rez@berachain.com>

calbera · 2025-04-14T23:20:09Z

would probably note that this is for the first Electra hardfork on berachain (electra0 / "0x05000000"). We may activate 6110 or parts of 7691 in future Electra hardforks on berachain mainnet (electra1, etc.)

calbera · 2025-04-14T23:21:44Z

 | `WITHDRAWAL_REQUEST_TYPE`    | `Bytes1('0x01')` |
 | `CONSOLIDATION_REQUEST_TYPE` | `Bytes1('0x02')` |

+@BERA: We introduce all of these fields, however, the Consensus Layer will only process `WITHDRAWAL_REQUEST_TYPE`. This means that if a user attempts to submit a `CONSOLIDATION_REQUEST_TYPE` or `DEPOSIT_REQUEST_TYPE`, they should expect to see no change to the system. However, their transaction will still be accepted on the execution layer.


would note that DEPOSIT_REQUEST_TYPE EL requests should not occur on Berachain as the unforked EL clients should not find Deposit Contract events to form as CL requests. (because the event signature in Berachain's deposit contract is different)

calbera · 2025-04-14T23:32:03Z

 | `MIN_ACTIVATION_BALANCE`        | `Gwei(2**5 * 10**9)` (= 32,000,000,000)    | *[New in Electra:EIP7251]* Minimum balance for a validator to become active      |
 | `MAX_EFFECTIVE_BALANCE_ELECTRA` | `Gwei(2**11 * 10**9)` (= 2048,000,000,000) | *[New in Electra:EIP7251]* Maximum effective balance for a compounding validator |

+@BERA: In Berachain, `MIN_ACTIVATION_BALANCE` will be set to reflected as 250K Bera and `MAX_EFFECTIVE_BALANCE_ELECTRA` will be reflected as 10_000_000 BERA.


How will this play out with our already EjectionBalance? Asking this because we actually set our EjectionBalance on mainnet to 240k BERA. And then we handle that in processing the val set updates by adding back the 10k BERA increment here.

This is now consolidated in MinActivationBalance

https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/8749f97ca2036124e6e13f7353c79fc225529299/state-transition/core/state_processor_validators.go#L49

calbera · 2025-04-14T23:34:49Z

    return withdrawals, processed_partial_withdrawals_count
 ```

+@BERA: We need to extend our implementation to handle `pending_partial_withdrawals`.


should we explain how we are using this list here?

or is it exact same as in spec?

I don't see any reason to deviate from spec here

Co-authored-by: Cal Bera <calbera@berachain.com> Signed-off-by: Rez <rez@berachain.com>

…ctra

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:43:15Z

 | ------------------------------- | ---------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
 | `COMPOUNDING_WITHDRAWAL_PREFIX` | `Bytes1('0x02')` | *[New in Electra:EIP7251]* Withdrawal credential prefix for a compounding validator |

+@BERA: In Ethereum, compounding validators are those can have a balance higher than 32 ETH, introduced as part of EIP-7251. In Berachain, all validators are considered 'compounding validators' as they can all have a balance above 250k BERA. As such, we skip distinguishing between compounding and non-compounding validators.


Relevant code paths stem from https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/5faec54e814f1883d211f2d9ee5f562f3e21765c/consensus-types/types/validator.go#L323-L328

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:46:04Z

    withdrawable_epoch: Epoch
 ```

+@BERA: Must be introduced to support the withdrawals logic.


Found here in beacon-kit https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/4a80d4a64cb4ebfce93e715284ba90f53323a30c/consensus-types/types/pending_partial_withdrawal.go#L49-L60

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:46:48Z

    index: uint64
 ```

+@BERA: Introduced for parity in ExecutionRequestsRoot calculation but unused.


Found here https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/a4eaa295cc03da3a3b34238b634fa387e1626449/consensus-types/types/deposit_request.go#L31-L32

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:47:24Z

+@BERA: Introduced for parity in ExecutionRequestsRoot calculation but unused.
+


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/a4eaa295cc03da3a3b34238b634fa387e1626449/consensus-types/types/consolidation_request.go#L42-L48

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:48:09Z

    execution_requests: ExecutionRequests  # [New in Electra]
 ```

+@BERA: We extend the beacon block body with `execution_requests`.


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/9b0c1b8321053b3b06576121e97645031c201a1c/consensus-types/types/body.go#L99-L101

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:49:57Z

+    earliest_consolidation_epoch: Epoch  # [New in Electra:EIP7251] @BERA: Unused
+    pending_deposits: List[PendingDeposit, PENDING_DEPOSITS_LIMIT]  # [New in Electra:EIP7251] @BERA: Unused
    # [New in Electra:EIP7251]
    pending_partial_withdrawals: List[PendingPartialWithdrawal, PENDING_PARTIAL_WITHDRAWALS_LIMIT]


BeaconState JSON
https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/0dd7339cc950376c6cd9a9b3084fff835e45c914/consensus-types/types/state.go#L67-L68

BeaconState KV Store

https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/b67bff16d14957e7c471a7e05e8f65126828b378/storage/beacondb/kvstore.go#L89-L99

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:50:44Z

    )
 ```

+@BERA: Effectively already implemented as we have `v.EffectiveBalance >= threshold`, where `threshold` is equivalent to `MIN_ACTIVATION_BALANCE`.


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/5faec54e814f1883d211f2d9ee5f562f3e21765c/consensus-types/types/validator.go#L219-L227

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:52:02Z

    return is_compounding_withdrawal_credential(validator.withdrawal_credentials)
 ```

+@BERA: `has_compounding_withdrawal_credential` but always returns true. See reasoning in `is_compounding_withdrawal_credential`.


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/5faec54e814f1883d211f2d9ee5f562f3e21765c/consensus-types/types/validator.go#L323-L328

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:52:43Z

+@BERA: Berachain only supports 0x01 credentials, so all validators should have this return true. We modify the implementation as below since `has_compounding_withdrawal_credential` will always returns true:
+
+```go
+    func (v Validator) HasExecutionWithdrawalCredential() bool {
+        return v.HasEth1WithdrawalCredentials()
+    }
+```


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/5faec54e814f1883d211f2d9ee5f562f3e21765c/consensus-types/types/validator.go#L267-L271

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:53:42Z

    )
 ```

+@BERA: We do not need to deviate from this.


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/5faec54e814f1883d211f2d9ee5f562f3e21765c/consensus-types/types/validator.go#L241-L249

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:55:08Z

        return MIN_ACTIVATION_BALANCE
 ```

+@BERA: This will always return 10_000_000 million on Berachain.


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/8a8730d97ffc4be0ee83b216160cd89fc43324ef/chain/spec.go#L266-L269

unchanged basically

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:56:09Z

    )
 ```

+@BERA: Introduced and used in `process_withdrawal_request`.


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/4a80d4a64cb4ebfce93e715284ba90f53323a30c/consensus-types/types/pending_partial_withdrawal.go#L151-L160

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:56:42Z

+            validator.SetExitEpoch(exitQueueEpoch)
+            validator.SetWithdrawableEpoch(withdrawableEpoch)
+```
+


InitiateValidatorExit:

https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/f9daf3671eddfea0e5725c7715e57dcac05d6baa/state-transition/core/state_processor_exits.go#L30-L76

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:58:59Z

+We continue to ignore this case as there is not forseeable way for a validator's balance to fall below the EJECTION_BALANCE balance, without it directly initiating a validator exit.
+
+For example, post-electra, if a Partial Withdrawal Request is made, the balance must remain above `MIN_ACTIVATION_BALANCE`. A Full Withdrawal Request will remove the entire balance and initiate a validator
+


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/8749f97ca2036124e6e13f7353c79fc225529299/state-transition/core/state_processor_validators.go#L60-L70

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T00:59:46Z

    execution_requests: ExecutionRequests  # [New in Electra]
 ```

+@BERA: Implemented.


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/a4eaa295cc03da3a3b34238b634fa387e1626449/consensus-types/types/execution_requests.go#L47-L51

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T01:01:29Z

    ...
 ```

+@BERA: Implemented.


Additional logic here https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/a4eaa295cc03da3a3b34238b634fa387e1626449/consensus-types/types/payload_requests.go#L117-L145

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T01:02:01Z

    ...
 ```

+@BERA: Implemented.


Additional logic here https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/a4eaa295cc03da3a3b34238b634fa387e1626449/execution/client/ethclient/engine.go#L59-L72

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T01:03:06Z

+@BERA: We modify:
+
+- `process_withdrawals` - Update pending partial withdrawals
+- `process_execution_payload` - Implemented.
+- `process_operations` - Call `process_withdrawal_request` in `process_operations`
+


ProcessBlock:

https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/6408e427da6c39cd3f83aa345b62a03ed030ad78/state-transition/core/state_processor.go#L201-L245

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T01:04:00Z

 ```

+@BERA: We need to extend our implementation to handle `pending_partial_withdrawals`.
+


New Logic in get_expected_withdrawals

https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/4a80d4a64cb4ebfce93e715284ba90f53323a30c/state-transition/core/state/statedb.go#L117-L126

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T01:04:43Z

        state.next_withdrawal_validator_index = next_validator_index
 ```

+@BERA: We adopt the change around `processed_partial_withdrawals_count`.


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/3992711351bd37d17b0757e8ce2e4bcacb7de789/state-transition/core/state_processor_withdrawals.go#L104-L120

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T01:05:12Z

    ]
 ```

+@BERA: Implemented.


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/a4eaa295cc03da3a3b34238b634fa387e1626449/consensus-types/types/execution_requests.go#L61-L63

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T01:06:33Z

    )
 ```

+@BERA: Implemented.


Implicitly passed as part of the beacon block

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T01:08:00Z

    return validator
 ```

+@BERA: In Berachain, the implementation can be found in `NewValidatorFromDeposit`. No change is required.


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/5faec54e814f1883d211f2d9ee5f562f3e21765c/consensus-types/types/validator.go#L68-L73

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T01:09:37Z

+1. `initiate_validator_exit` does not rely on churn.
+2. `has_compounding_withdrawal_credential` will always be true.
+3. Partial withdrawals will not rely on churn to calculate the exit and withdrawable epochs.
+


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/3992711351bd37d17b0757e8ce2e4bcacb7de789/state-transition/core/state_processor_withdrawals.go#L167-L170

particular care needs to be taken to ensure we're doing correct erorr handling

rezzmah · 2025-04-21T01:10:18Z

    return post
 ```
+
+@BERA: We need to update the BeaconState fork version and set `pending_partial_withdrawals=[]`.


https://github.com/berachain/beacon-kit/blob/c4fc149f0b40faa32f8a30bebd542d661477566a/state-transition/core/state_processor_forks.go#L164-L185

rezzmah added 11 commits April 8, 2025 13:51

Annotated with Bera context

9cbc544

Signed-off-by: Rez <rez@berachain.com>

Fix spacing

d46687f

Signed-off-by: Rez <rez@berachain.com>

Update validator.md

63f3119

Signed-off-by: Rez <rez@berachain.com>

Update fork.md

7cdf778

Signed-off-by: Rez <rez@berachain.com>

Update beacon-chain.md

994c745

Update beacon-chain.md

e97ad86

Update beacon-chain.md

5c9e9a3

Updating comments

36bd981

Comments

43afd1a

Update beacon-chain.md

9a9788d

Update beacon-chain.md

8b13de9

rezzmah marked this pull request as ready for review April 14, 2025 22:47

rezzmah added 2 commits April 15, 2025 08:54

Update beacon-chain.md

bd8829f

Update beacon-chain.md

f4f9962

calbera reviewed Apr 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread specs/electra/beacon-chain.md Outdated

calbera reviewed Apr 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

rezzmah and others added 5 commits April 15, 2025 09:40

Update specs/electra/beacon-chain.md

6b0bdbb

Co-authored-by: Cal Bera <calbera@berachain.com> Signed-off-by: Rez <rez@berachain.com>

Update beacon-chain.md

0c855f5

Merge branch 'bectra' of github.com:berachain/consensus-specs into be…

1e26733

…ctra

Update fork.md

ccba826

Update comments

344f909

rezzmah commented Apr 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

Update beacon-chain.md

d44b7e0

rezzmah commented Apr 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread specs/electra/beacon-chain.md

)

```

@BERA: Implemented.

rezzmah Apr 21, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Implicitly passed as part of the beacon block

rezzmah commented Apr 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

		@BERA: Introduced for parity in ExecutionRequestsRoot calculation but unused.

		We continue to ignore this case as there is not forseeable way for a validator's balance to fall below the EJECTION_BALANCE balance, without it directly initiating a validator exit.

		For example, post-electra, if a Partial Withdrawal Request is made, the balance must remain above `MIN_ACTIVATION_BALANCE`. A Full Withdrawal Request will remove the entire balance and initiate a validator

		```

		@BERA: We need to extend our implementation to handle `pending_partial_withdrawals`.

Uh oh!

Conversation

rezzmah commented Apr 8, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

rezzmah commented Apr 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading