Written by the Besu Maintainers.

To streamline Prague planning from the Besu client team, our maintainers propose the following scope...

Scope

EOF (Danno)

Besu supports adding EOF to the Prague hard fork.

The EVM Object Format is a collection of smaller changes aiming at paying down a significant amount of technical debt that the EVM has accrued over nearly a decade, and prepare the EVM so that "calcification" can occur on a robust foundation. EOF does not fundamentally change the execution of the EVM, instead it introduces a container format and migrates key instructions to new formats that resolve long standing problems such as eliminating dynamic jumps and the associated JUMPDEST analysis. An incomplete bullet point list of benefits

EOF contracts will typically be smaller than legacy contracts (~1%-3% in typical cases and 20% in extreme cases).
EOF contracts can safely have unlimited size, while doing the same for Legacy EVM code would require over 10% more code storage
EOF contracts can reliably be AOT compiled to traditional or ZK languages because of code validation, stack validation, and static jump operations
EOF contracts enable eliminating Code observability and Gas observability, paving the way for a full ZK migration of the execution layer.

There are so many cool features an entire website is needed to explain them.

// Team ipsilon is launching https://evmobjectformat.org/ next week

EF Devops is aiming to get a dev net started in March, which Besu aims to join. We anticipate being fully ready with the full EOF spec by then, as our current prototype has the core and most difficult features already implemented. This spec is derivative of the "Big EOF" spec, of which Besu, Nethermind, Geth, and EthereumJS were all participating with on the "Shandong" dev net in early 2023.

EOAs & Next Steps

pros, cons, next steps

EIP-3074 - AUTH and AUTHCALL
EIP-5003 - AUTHUSURP

The following two EIPs as currently written are unsuitable for fork scheduling.

* EIP-5003 - AUTHUSURP

This EIP provides the same category of functionality seen in EIP-7377, except in the form of an opcode driven by external data. From a UX perspective this introduces unique risks not present in 7377. A transaction may or may not result in an account migration depending on smart contract logic. The process of upgrading in 7377 is unambiguous and direct: the account will be migrated if the transaction reaches consensus. Furthermore wallets can appropriately detect such actions and warn users as needed, whereas a smart contract activated migration can be constructed to make such warnings unreliable. Shipping EIP-7377 would be better, as would waiting for better EOA evolution alternatives.

* EIP-3074 - AUTH and AUTHCALL

EDIT: NONCE CONSIDERATION

This EIP was considered and rejected for the London hard fork, almost three years ago. There was a call for a security audit, which has not been done. Many of the security concerns have not been addressed, and the recent change to add nonce support still permits eternal authorizations. Furthermore wallet providers such as MetaMask are hesitant to provide support for this feature. Unlike constructions like Permit2, ERC-20 allowances, and ERC-4337 smart contract wallets, the side effects of 3074 authorizations impact all users of the EVM, not just contracts that opt into such semantics.

Inclusion Lists (Justin)

pros, cons, next steps

Do we want to move this to the CREEP section? Or are we ready to champion?

Grab bag (TO-DO)

No-Brainers

EIP-2537 - BLS Precompile

EIP-7212 - Precompile for Secp256R1 - //Danno - The question is at a rollup address or at a mainnet address, or both?

Anti-Goals (or, creep)

Verkle (Karim)

Pros, cons, why not now?

Page tree

The Prague Upgrade from Besu Maintainers - The Hot, Cold, & Open-Ended