-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
Add builder execution requests (EIP-8282) #5359
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from all commits
20d292f
be0f335
c90980c
f1e91b9
5483667
b78e143
a9077f3
76e9c40
4ac8251
f089bde
7049710
ec21b6e
347f9b7
8a73ad0
c15bd91
ed960f1
c84f2e4
bb5e31e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ and imports proof types from [proof-engine.md](./proof-engine.md). | |||||
|
|
||||||
| | Name | Value | | ||||||
| | ------------------------ | -------------------------- | | ||||||
| | `DOMAIN_EXECUTION_PROOF` | `DomainType('0x0E000000')` | | ||||||
| | `DOMAIN_EXECUTION_PROOF` | `DomainType('0x0F000000')` | | ||||||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Hmm 0x0F doesn't exist yet here. Since this is based on Gloas, not Heze. But yeah, we can change this optimistically.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If this comes before Heze, the domain in Heze would change instead. If that makes sense.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Either this or Heze's one should be changed. Slightly prefer to change this one to G because it's not entirely scheduled to ship this.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. To be clear, since both are currently based off Gloas they do not need to be different right now. After thinking about this for a while, I have just pushed a commit with changes Heze's |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| ## Containers | ||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This may be very costly, but with these numbers assymmetric, someone could make a ton of deposits and then withdraw all of them and take the whole churn for a long time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think there is a good reason to use such a low value for exits as they are generally cheap to process
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Staying in the target of 2 exit requests per payload, it would require locking up 14,400 ETH ($30m) to delay the builder exit queue by one day. This doesn't feel like a realistic concern.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
no, not a concern imo, we have a really high
MIN_BUILDER_WITHDRAWABILITY_DELAYso this would be way too expensive, and exiting builders isn't actually time sensitive and already takes a long time