Skip to content
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

Consensus-layer Call 131 #1003

Closed
ralexstokes opened this issue Apr 1, 2024 · 8 comments
Closed

Consensus-layer Call 131 #1003

ralexstokes opened this issue Apr 1, 2024 · 8 comments

Comments

@ralexstokes
Copy link
Member

ralexstokes commented Apr 1, 2024

Consenus-layer Call 131

prev: call 130

Meeting Date/Time: Thursday 2024/4/4 at 14:00 UTC
Meeting Duration: 1.5 hours
stream

  1. Deneb
  2. Electra
    • Discuss currently included EIPs, including status of spec and any open questions
    • Client team updates on current implementation status of each included EIP
    • Discuss any additional EIPs to include in Electra scope for early devnets
      • 7547 - Inclusion lists
      • anything else?
    • Agree on final scope for pectra-devnet-0
      • estimates on first devnet timeline?
  3. Research, spec, etc
    • PeerDAS
      • spec status update?
      • implementation status update?
      • start implementer’s call?
  4. Open discussion/Closing remarks
@dapplion
Copy link
Contributor

dapplion commented Apr 2, 2024

Confirm that all clients use Deneb fork id for exits gossip topics on Deneb.

@jrudolf
Copy link

jrudolf commented Apr 3, 2024

@ethDreamer to give an update on maxEB

@terencechain
Copy link
Contributor

It may be useful to bring closure to the Bloxroute BDN issue. We left the matter unresolved last Thursday, pending a post-mortem report.

Today's update:

  • I've counted, incident started on Mar 18 12:25:55, ended on Mar 27 17:51:34. Total 240 blocks missed
  • Blockroute post mortem: https://gist.github.com/benhenryhunter/687299bcfe064674537dc9348d771e83
  • Michael's response: https://twitter.com/sproulM_/status/1773853486373130708
  • Since then, LH and Prysm have updated their implementations to allow the Beacon-API submission of blobs even if a block has been observed over P2P, regardless of whether the equivocation flag is set to true
  • My general sentiment is that this issue could have easily been prevented, and the urgency has now shifted towards thoroughly considering how to prevent it in the future

@lucassaldanha
Copy link
Contributor

Electra Testnets: I'm wondering if there are any plans for an Electra testnet for EIP-7002 and EIP-6110? I believe those two EIPs could be tested together and there is no need to feature flag them (basically both enabled as part of Electra fork).

@ralexstokes
Copy link
Member Author

@lucassaldanha yeah, i think we should push for electra testnets with all 4 included EIPs, and whatever we can hopefully agree to on today's call!

@tbenr
Copy link
Contributor

tbenr commented Apr 4, 2024

Unfortunately I can't join the call today. Just sharing here teku's view about 7547, as shared yesterday on discord.

The design seems a bit unclean so far. My concerns are that, if we go for something like this, then ePBS\ET could change the context that IL design will be affected. Moreover, recent mainnet issues with block production and relay made me feel we should prioritize the CL-EL block separation, which will set a more solid base to build IL on top of.
I'd keep it outside Electra and allocate time to ePBS related efforts.

@realbigsean
Copy link

Since then, LH and Prysm have updated their implementations to allow the Beacon-API submission of blobs even if a block has been observed over P2P, regardless of whether the equivocation flag is set to true

still a WIP on LH :) aiming for inclusion in our next release

@timbeiko
Copy link
Collaborator

timbeiko commented Apr 8, 2024

Closed in favor of #1010

@timbeiko timbeiko closed this as completed Apr 8, 2024
TeamAvarch added a commit to TeamAvarch/Ethereum-pm that referenced this issue Apr 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants