Repository navigation
caps/eth: define the pooled transaction encoding and fix the txsize definition #281
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’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
qu0b
wants to merge
1
commit into
ethereum:master
Choose a base branch
from
qu0b:qu0b/spec/txsize-announced-encoding
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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 am not sure whether it is a good idea to bind the encoding to a specific message type. For example, in EIP 8077, we are considering the idea of sending type 3 transactions directly via
Transactions.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.
yeah, I also am septical regarding this point. Do you have any example on how this might be done more clearly? maybe just revise the current spec wording to ammend it slightly to handle the blob transaction annoncement. Theres the "TODO" in there so instead of handling a more general case we can just handle the specific case.
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.
What about defining
net-tx = { tx, wrapped-tx }? i.e. the wrapped encoding for transaction types that define one, and otherwise make it identical totx` (the consensus encoding).[PooledTransactions]would become[request-id: P, [net-tx₁, net-tx₂, ...]], and the same for[Transactions], but we could add an additional restriction there saying that type-3 transactions must not be sent using this message type. This could be removed after 8077There 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.
Hi, are you still working on this ? What I meant was that we might use the pooled-tx type for
Transactionsafter 8077, so handling the general case seems better with that in mind. I just wasn't sure whether the type name was somehow tied to a specific message type's name. But since it can also refer to transactions in the txpool, I think it's fine as is.