Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7594: PeerDAS - Peer Data Availability Sampling

Assessed in Osaka / Fusaka. The score describes the EIP text available at the assessment cutoff, not the EIP as it stands today.

RetrospectiveOsaka / FusakaAssessment cutoff 2024-09-27Included by cutoffLayers: execution, consensus
LLM Completescore 24
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2024-06-17 · 4353b530c3

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, EIP-7594 proposed replacing universal blob-data download with PeerDAS, a consensus-networking protocol built on EIP-4844. It extended blobs into an erasure-coded column matrix, authenticated cells against blob KZG commitments, and assigned deterministic column custody to nodes. Nodes would discover diverse peers, gossip and request columns, sample availability each slot, and reconstruct data from at least half of the columns, while the precise fork-choice integration remained unfinished.

24HighHigh
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 8 criteria affected
Plausible range
20–24 (Medium–High)
Assessment cutoff
2024-09-27 · EIP revision 4353b530c3 (2024-06-17)
Score bands · Checklist revision 2
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

28 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 84.

Complexity profile

Each segment is one criterion's contribution to the LLM total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Top complexity drivers

  1. Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3
  2. Security risks3
  3. Performance risks3
  4. Edge/boundary conditions3

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

The EIP text available at the assessment cutoff left material behavior unresolved. The affected criteria and the plausible total range record that uncertainty.

Why: Material consensus behavior remains unresolved: the fork-choice data- availability filter, sampling follow distance and timing, missing-sample thresholds, short-reorg treatment, request/message aggregation, anti-DoS and QoS rules, and subnet rotation are not fixed. These gaps chiefly affect how clients produce common outcomes and how regression and network tests must be structured; they are not repaired from later knowledge.

Plausible total

20–24
recorded score 24 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)
  • At what slot or follow distance must successful sampling gate fork-choice eligibility, and how are temporary sampling failures and short reorgs treated?
  • When is a sample deemed missing, and when must a node request, reconstruct, or cross-seed a column?
  • Are samples requested and propagated individually or in aggregates, and what anti-DoS, rate-limit, and QoS rules are consensus-testable?
  • How and when do deterministic custody subnets rotate relative to the data pruning period?
  • Which new fixtures or expectations belong in the shared test framework as opposed to PeerDAS-local test helpers?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The rubric's encoding anchor expressly includes interfaces; this assessment treats the new SSZ DataColumnSidecar on consensus gossip and request/response interfaces as an interface-level encoding change.
  • The work-in-progress does not distinguish which existing blob-availability tests are rewritten versus which retain their logic and gain new assertions.
  • The specification supplies reusable protocol helpers but no test design, so the score for new test-framework primitives depends on the unavoidable need to model multi-peer sampling and failure behavior.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7594 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3A new SSZ container and data types cross gossip and request/response interfaces, which is an interface-level encoding change. The rubric assigns a binary score of 3 when such a change is introduced.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Custom types and DataColumnSidecar, lines 54-98 The specification adds SSZ-equivalent DataColumn and ExtendedMatrix types and a DataColumnSidecar container carrying cells, proofs, commitments, a signed header, and an inclusion proof.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Column gossip and peer sampling, lines 231-245 The new sidecars are exchanged on column gossip subnets and through a DataColumnSidecarsByRoot request interface.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The anchor's examples emphasize transaction, block, and Engine interfaces; this assessment treats the explicitly encoded consensus P2P interfaces as interfaces within its stated scope.
Security risksUnder-specified3Incorrect sampling, custody, discovery, proof, or fork-choice behavior can cause unavailable data to be accepted or available blocks to be rejected. The design changes assumptions across networking, cryptography, validators, and fork choice, requiring extensive review and adversarial testing.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Custody and peer discovery, lines 199-225 Availability relies on public deterministic custody, advertised capacity, diverse peers, and discovery defenses against attack and centralization.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Peer sampling through fork choice, lines 239-279 Peer responsiveness, reconstruction, cross-seeding, and sample timing feed a data-availability filter whose choices affect reorgs and finality.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 46-48 The EIP's own security analysis is still marked as needing discussion.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The absent security analysis leaves attack parameters and mitigations unresolved, but the cross-component critical-chain exposure supports 3.
Performance risksUnder-specified3CPU, memory, bandwidth, latency, peer topology, and reconstruction load interact in live per-slot operation. These mechanisms cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation and substantially alter existing blob propagation performance, meeting score 3.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Configuration, lines 63-85 The design fixes 128 columns, up to 768 cells, 32 gossip subnets, eight samples per slot, and a target of 70 peers.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Sidecar construction, lines 167-196 For every block, clients compute cells and KZG proofs and construct a sidecar for every column across all blobs.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Discovery through DAS providers, lines 215-267 Runtime behavior couples peer discovery, gossip, per-slot requests, scoring, reconstruction, cross-seeding, and optional high-capacity peers.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Timing and aggregation choices are unresolved, so exact benchmark cases are uncertain even though the need for system-level performance validation is clear.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Multiple mechanisms have boundaries, and reconstruction/sampling combines column counts, peer distributions, timeouts, failures, proof validity, and blob counts into an elevated test matrix. This meets score 3.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · get_custody_columns, lines 102-129 Custody selection includes a maximum node-ID wrap, a custody-count bound, duplicate avoidance, subnet-to-column expansion, and deterministic order.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Peer sampling and reconstruction, lines 239-259 Sampling success, missing responses, the 50-percent reconstruction threshold, fallback requests, timing, and message aggregation all create boundary-sensitive behavior.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Exact timeout and message-aggregation boundaries are expressly unresolved, but their absence increases rather than removes the boundary-testing need.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified3Previously local network observations such as sample success and timing are intended to determine consensus fork-choice eligibility. Because the WIP leaves those outcomes open, clients need repeated agreement and test re-baselining, matching score 3.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Reconstruction and cross-seeding, lines 247-259 The document leaves open when samples count as missing and whether sample messages are individual or aggregated, with anti-DoS and QoS unresolved.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · A note on fork choice, lines 269-279 Fork choice is explicitly TBD, including sampling follow distance, timing, short-reorg acceptability, and confirmation effects.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Subnet stability, lines 294-296 Subnet rotation relative to the pruning period is identified as likely necessary but is not specified.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The package contains no implementation or devnet evidence, as required by the hindsight firewall; the score rests on explicit WIP and TBD passages.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified2Existing EIP-4844 consensus tests for sidecar propagation, availability, and fork-choice behavior must be substantially reworked around columns and samples. This is a considerable but feature-bounded category, matching 2.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Consensus layer validation, lines 228-243 EIP-4844's existing consensus path requires blob availability, blob sidecar gossip and sync, and validator production of sidecars.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · A note on fork choice, lines 269-279 PeerDAS is intended to replace the Deneb is_data_available full-download call with column sampling and a new availability filter.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The packaged work-in-progress does not enumerate the exact pre-existing test inventory, so the boundary between a minor and considerable subset is judgmental.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified2Repeatable tests require new reusable fixtures and expectations for column generation/proofs, peer custody, sampling responses, and reconstruction. These are substantial primitives reusable within PeerDAS's own suite, but the package does not establish permanent cross-EIP framework adoption.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Helper functions, lines 100-196 The specification introduces deterministic custody selection, extended matrix computation and recovery, and construction of 128 column sidecars.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Peer sampling through reconstruction, lines 239-259 Tests must exercise per-slot peer queries, response failures, recovery, request fallback, and cross-seeding behavior.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No test-framework design or test cases are supplied, so some cryptographic fixtures might instead be implemented as ordinary test-local helpers.
CryptographyUnder-specified2This materially extends the existing EIP-4844 KZG use to erasure-coded cells, proof generation, and recovery. As a single novel or limited-resource cryptographic construction at this work-in-progress stage, it matches 2.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-30 PeerDAS adds one-dimensional erasure coding, divides extended blobs into cells, and authenticates those cells against blob KZG commitments.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Extended-matrix and sidecar helpers, lines 131-196 The design invokes cell computation, per-cell KZG-proof construction, row recovery, and packaging proofs for every column sidecar.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The sealed document invokes but does not define the underlying cell-proof algorithms, leaving judgment over whether this is one modified mechanism or multiple mechanisms.
Cross-EIP interactions2EIP-7594 has one strong dependency, EIP-4844, and coordinated tests must cover the changed blob sidecar, commitment, and availability path. That is a substantive but limited-scope interaction, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Metadata, Motivation, and Specification, lines 11 and 18-32 EIP-7594 explicitly requires EIP-4844, extends its blobs and commitments, and changes how their availability is established.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Consensus layer validation, lines 228-236 EIP-4844's sidecar design deliberately isolates is_data_available so that full download can later be replaced by data-availability sampling.
Confidence: High
Interacting EIPs: EIP-4844
New invariant on pre-existing testsUnder-specified1The narrow category of existing blob-availability tests gains additional assertions that sampled columns, proofs, commitments, and headers agree. The requirement is not universal across fork tests, matching score 1.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · DataColumnSidecar, lines 86-98 The new sidecar binds a column and per-blob KZG proofs to commitments and a signed block header with an inclusion proof.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Consensus layer validation, lines 228-243 Pre-existing blob-aware consensus tests already check block-associated data availability and sidecar behavior.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Some affected tests may be wholly rewritten rather than retain their logic and add assertions, making a zero score also plausible.
Show 18 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 EIP-7594 defines only blob data-availability and peer-network mechanisms, with no EVM instruction.
Modified opcodes0No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified or deprecated.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 The proposal does not specify EVM execution behavior or alter an existing instruction.
Added precompiles0The new cryptographic processing is not exposed as a new precompile.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 Cell authentication and erasure coding are consensus-side PeerDAS operations; no EVM precompile address or callable interface is added.
Modified precompiles0PeerDAS's consensus-side cell proofs do not modify precompile logic or gas.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Point evaluation precompile, lines 195-226 EIP-4844 already defines the point-evaluation precompile and its fixed behavior and cost.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 EIP-7594 uses blob KZG commitments for cells but states no change to the EIP-4844 point-evaluation precompile.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 The specified design consists of off-EVM data coding, custody, gossip, peer requests, sampling, and reconstruction.
Modified system contracts0No direct or indirect modification to a pre-existing system contract is specified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 The PeerDAS mechanisms do not reference or change any system contract's code, state, or behavior.
EVM Gas rule changes0PeerDAS operates on consensus data availability and peer networking. It does not alter normal EVM gas accounting, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 The specified changes concern erasure-coded blob columns, custody, sampling, and reconstruction; no EVM gas rule is introduced or changed.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode gains or reorders a state access or gas charge, so there is no consensus-visible state-access ordering change under this anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 The proposal specifies column construction, custody, peer sampling, and reconstruction without specifying opcode execution or state access.
Blob gas accounting changes0The proposal changes how blob data is distributed and checked, not how blob gas is calculated or charged. The existing mechanism is unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 EIP-7594 extends the data representation and availability protocol for EIP-4844 blobs but states no fee, gas-per-blob, target, or limit change.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Gas accounting, lines 164-186 EIP-4844 already defines independent blob gas, its base-fee computation, and fee deduction; EIP-7594 supplies no modification to these rules.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas charging site, rate, budget, reservoir, or execution-gas spill rule is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 The complete high-level specification contains only blob data-extension and peer-availability mechanisms and introduces no state writes or state gas budget.
New EVM gas refund0No gas-refund mechanism is introduced, so the zero anchor applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 The proposal defines networking and data-availability behavior and no EVM fee-refund behavior.
New transaction types0The dependency's blob transaction is not newly introduced by EIP-7594, so this criterion scores 0.
  • eip.md · Metadata and Specification, lines 7-11 and 24-32 EIP-7594 requires EIP-4844 and extends its blobs, but does not define an additional transaction envelope or type number.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Blob transaction, lines 97-117 The blob transaction type is an existing EIP-4844 mechanism on which PeerDAS builds.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0The proposal does not modify the validity of an existing transaction type.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation, lines 244-289 EIP-4844 already defines blob-transaction fee, hash-version, count, and block blob-gas validity checks.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 PeerDAS changes availability distribution and sampling but adds no transaction validity or intrinsic-gas rule.
New block / header fields0New sidecar fields are not new block or header fields, so the binary anchor remains 0.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension, lines 119-162 Blob gas fields are pre-existing EIP-4844 header extensions.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · DataColumnSidecar, lines 86-98 PeerDAS references an existing signed block header from a separate sidecar container and does not add a field to the header itself.
Block syncing changes0Although peer data transfer changes, the anchor is specifically for block RLP validation requiring syncing; no such mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Metadata and Specification, lines 7-11 and 24-32 The EIP is categorized as Networking and specifies column sidecars and sampling, not a block RLP validation rule.
New fork activation mechanism0No fork-activation transition mechanism is specified. New constants and data types do not constitute modification under the anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-32 The proposal states ongoing PeerDAS behavior but no activation-block state change or modification of an existing internal variable.
Engine API changes0No Engine API directive changes are stated, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-32 The proposal specifies beacon-node data-availability networking and no Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism.
Transition-tool interface changes0Nothing in the specified change requires a field or mechanism in an execution transition-tool interface.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-32 The EIP defines a beacon-node networking protocol and no execution state transition inputs or outputs.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@4353b530c3 EIPS/eip-7594.md committed 2024-06-17 · information cutoff 2024-09-27T18:42:32Z
Current master · File history · blob 3d9747d143 · sha256 bf2501c16c94
Rubric
Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator
gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/05-retrospective-complexity-assignment/outputs/fork-eips/osaka/eip-7594.yaml · sha256 381fe4f9d889
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-4844.md, supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md
Compare EIP-7594 with other assessmentsAll Osaka / Fusaka assessments
Criterion legend and glossary

Every stacked bar, comparison matrix, and criterion table on this site uses the same criterion colours, abbreviations, and order. Colour marks the criterion group; the abbreviation and name identify the criterion. Scores are 0–3 per criterion (4 is exceptional; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped).

EVM surface

Opcodes, precompiles, and system contracts that are added or modified.

  • Added opcodes
    Introduces new opcodes
    Score anchors
    0
    No new opcodes are introduced.
    1
    A new simple opcode is introduced (no data portion, no complex stack mechanics, and a constant gas cost).
    2
    Multiple new simple opcodes are introduced, or a single new complex opcode is introduced (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
    3
    Multiple new opcodes are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
    • Cryptography opcodes are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" section for a separate assessment.
  • Modified opcodes
    Modifies pre-existing opcodes
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing opcode modifications are introduced.
    3
    At least one pre-existing opcode's behavior is modified (not including gas changes) or a pre-existing opcode is deprecated.
  • Added precompiles
    Introduces new precompiles
    Score anchors
    0
    No new precompiles are introduced.
    1
    A new simple precompile is introduced (constant input length, constant gas cost).
    2
    Multiple new simple precompiles are introduced, or a single new complex precompile is introduced (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
    3
    Multiple new precompiles are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
    • Cryptography precompiles are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" for a separate assessment.
  • Modified precompiles
    Modifies pre-existing precompiles logic or gas-accounting
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing precompiles are modified.
    1
    At least one pre-existing precompile has its gas schedule modified.
    2
    Multiple pre-existing precompiles have their gas schedule modified, or a single pre-existing precompile has its behavior modified.
    3
    The behavior of multiple pre-existing precompiles, or a single complex pre-existing precompile modified.
  • Added system contracts
    Introduces new system contract, stateful or not
    Score anchors
    0
    No new system contracts are introduced.
    1
    A new system contract is introduced that is not stateful nor does it trigger a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
    2
    Multiple new system contracts are introduced or a single new system contract that is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
    3
    Multiple new system contracts are introduced and at least one of them is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
  • Modified system contracts
    Modifies pre-existing system contracts
    Score anchors
    0
    No modifications to pre-existing system contracts are introduced, directly or indirectly.
    1
    Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has minor indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
    2
    Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has major indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
    3
    At least one pre-existing system contract code or state is modified, which would involve irregular state transition or a similarly complex transition methodology.

Gas and accounting

Execution, blob, and state gas rules, refunds, and where charges happen inside opcodes.

  • EVM Gas rule changes
    New EVM gas accounting rules
    Score anchors
    0
    No gas accounting changes.
    1
    Existing gas accounting mechanism is updated.
    2
    A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
    3
    A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
  • State-access ordering within opcode execution · Checklist revision 2 only
    Changes *where inside an opcode's execution* state is accessed, or where gas is charged relative to that access. Because a state access is recorded in the block-level access list only if execution had enough gas to reach it, this ordering is consensus-critical: moving it changes the BAL at every gas boundary of every affected opcode.
    Score anchors
    0
    No change to where state is accessed, or to where gas is charged relative to a state access, within any opcode.
    1
    A single opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
    2
    Multiple opcodes' ordering changes, or a new state-accessing operation is introduced whose position in the order must be settled.
    3
    The ordering rule changes for a whole class of state-accessing opcodes at once, or what counts as a recordable state access is redefined — requiring existing BAL vectors to be re-derived across opcodes and forks.
    • Distinct from "Modified opcodes", which asks whether an opcode's **result** changed. This row asks about the **path to the result**, which is observable even when the result is identical. An EIP can be 0 on that row and 3 on this one.
    • Score changes **to** the ordering. Do not score the fact that state accesses are observable — they always are.
    • Each boundary must be re-tested against every other dimension that can change the answer (cold/warm, static/non-static, delegated/direct, revert/success), so the case count grows multiplicatively rather than additively. Note this explicitly under Special Considerations.
  • Blob gas accounting changes
    New Blob gas accounting rules which potentially affect pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No blob gas accounting changes.
    1
    Existing blob gas accounting mechanism is updated.
    2
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
    3
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
  • State gas accounting changes · Checklist revision 2 only
    New state gas accounting rules. State gas is the cost of *writing* state, as opposed to accessing or executing it: `StateGasCosts`, `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE`, the block-level state gas budget, and the spill path into execution gas.
    Score anchors
    0
    No state gas accounting changes.
    1
    An existing state gas cost or `STATE_BYTES_PER_*` rate is adjusted.
    2
    A new state-gas-charging site is introduced, or the block-level state gas budget or reservoir allocation is modified.
    3
    A new state gas charging mechanism is introduced, or the spill interaction between state gas and execution gas is modified, affecting existing gas tests.
    • Harder to test than blob gas: the spill path means state gas cannot be metered independently of execution gas, and some costs (e.g. `NEW_ACCOUNT`) are state-dependent.
  • New EVM gas refund
    New gas-refund mechanism
    Score anchors
    0
    No new gas-refund mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new simple gas-refund mechanism is introduced that does not affect either existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    2
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced or a simple mechanism that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    3
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

Transaction types and validity, block and header fields, encodings, syncing, and activation-time changes.

  • New transaction types
    Introduces a new transaction type
    Score anchors
    0
    No new transaction types are introduced.
    3
    A new transaction type is introduced.
  • New or modified transaction validity mechanisms
    Creates new or modifies pre-existing transaction types' validation mechanisms
    Score anchors
    0
    No changes are introduced to the validity rules of existing transaction types or to their intrinsic gas cost calculation.
    1
    Minor adjustments are introduced to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation, but they do not significantly affect existing tests.
    2
    Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation affect existing tests, but require only limited updates to test cases and no redesign of the testing infrastructure.
    3
    Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation require extensive rework or redesign of the tests or testing infrastructure.
  • New block / header fields
    Introduces new block or block header fields
    Score anchors
    0
    No new block or header fields are introduced.
    3
    A new block or header field is introduced.
  • Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)
    Introduces encoding changes at the transaction/block/interfaces level
    Score anchors
    0
    No encoding changes are introduced at the transaction, block, or interfaces levels.
    3
    An encoding change is introduced at transaction, block or interfaces level (e.g. RLP -> SSZ).
    • "Interfaces level" includes the Engine API. Score an Engine API encoding change (e.g. JSON -> SSZ) here.
  • Block syncing changes
    Modifies block RLP validation mechanisms that require test client syncing.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
    1
    A single simple RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
    2
    Multiple simple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced or a single complex one.
    3
    Multiple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is deemed complex.
  • New fork activation mechanism
    Modifies state, internal variables, or similar, at the fork activation block
    Score anchors
    0
    No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block.
    3
    Either a state modification or internal variables are modified at the fork activation block.
    • Initialization of new internal variable is not considered a modification.

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

  • Engine API changes
    Introduces new fields to the Engine API directives
    Score anchors
    0
    No new fields or communication mechanisms are introduced to the Engine API.
    1
    A single new field is introduced in one of the Engine API endpoints.
    2
    Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points, or a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
    3
    Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points and a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
  • Engine API encoding changes · Checklist revision 1 only
    Engine API encoding changes (the revision-1 template defines no anchor text for this row).
  • Transition-tool interface changes
    Modifies or adds new fields to the transition tool interface.
    Score anchors
    0
    No modifications to the transition tool interface are required.
    1
    A single new field needs to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    2
    Multiple new fields or a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    3
    Multiple new fields and a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    • Special consideration must be paid to this section if the EIP introduces a mechanism that requires the state transition tool to be aware whether the block it is processing is the fork-activation block.

Testing impact

Rework, new invariants, and new primitives required in the test framework.

  • Patterns affecting pre-existing tests
    Implements a new validation mechanism or rule that translates in reworking pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing tests are affected by this change.
    1
    Minor subset of existing tests are affected by this change.
    2
    Considerable subset of existing tests are affected by this change but involves only a contrived category of tests.
    3
    Major subset of existing tests are affected, including diverse category of tests (benchmarks, static, multiple forks, etc.).
  • New invariant on pre-existing tests · Checklist revision 2 only
    Tests that are **not about this EIP** must nonetheless assert something this EIP produces. Their logic does not change; they gain a new thing to check.
    Score anchors
    0
    Pre-existing tests assert nothing new.
    1
    A narrow, contrived category of pre-existing tests gains a new assertion.
    2
    A broad category gains a new assertion, applied mechanically.
    3
    Every test in the fork gains the assertion regardless of what it tests, and pre-fork vectors must be re-derived to satisfy it.
    • Paired with the row above, and easy to confuse with it. "Patterns affecting pre-existing tests" asks whether existing tests must be **reworked**; this row asks whether they must **additionally assert something new**. Score both — an EIP can be low on one and high on the other.
  • New test-framework primitives · Checklist revision 2 only
    Requires new abstractions in the test framework itself — expectation types, modifiers, helpers — beyond writing test functions with what already exists.
    Score anchors
    0
    Existing test primitives suffice.
    1
    Existing primitives need minor extension.
    2
    New expectation or modifier primitives are required, reusable within this EIP's own test suite.
    3
    New framework-level primitives are required that become a permanent part of the framework and are used by other EIPs' tests.

Risk and validation

Security, performance, boundary conditions, and cryptography that need validation.

  • Security risks
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms that could compromise the security of the chain, users, validators, or other stakeholders, if not implemented properly.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new mechanisms are introduced that could pose a security risk.
    1
    The introduced mechanisms are self-contained, can be validated in isolation, and do not alter existing invariants that could pose a security risk for any stakeholders.
    2
    The introduced mechanisms interact with a limited number of existing components, slightly altering their security assumptions and requiring a targeted security review or fuzzing.
    3
    The introduced mechanisms interact with multiple existing components, including critical ones, substantially altering their security assumptions and requiring an extensive security review and fuzzing.
  • Performance risks
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms and requires performance validation.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new mechanisms are introduced that require performance validation.
    1
    The introduced mechanisms can be benchmarked in isolation and do not affect existing performance behavior.
    2
    The introduced mechanisms cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation, but they only have a limited impact on the existing performance benchmarks.
    3
    The introduced mechanisms cannot be benchmarked in isolation and have a substantial impact on existing performance benchmarks or have complex interactions with existing mechanisms.
  • Edge/boundary conditions
    Feature contains edge/boundary conditions.
    Score anchors
    0
    No discernible edge cases or boundary conditions are introduced.
    1
    A single edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanism is introduced.
    2
    Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced, but none of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
    3
    Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
  • Cryptography
    Introduces new cryptography mechanisms or modifies existing functionality that involves cryptography
    Score anchors
    0
    No cryptography mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new cryptography mechanism is introduced but it is a well known mechanism that is known to have vast resources to aid on its testing.
    2
    Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced that are well-known or a single but novel mechanism is introduced that is either untested or has limited resources.
    3
    Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is a novel mechanism.

Coordination

Cross-EIP interactions and behavior that clients must agree on before tests exist.

  • Cross-EIP interactions
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms that affect other EIPs in either the same or past forks.
    Score anchors
    0
    Fully self-contained EIP that does not depend on, modify, or conflict with any other EIP.
    1
    The EIP interacts with one or more other EIPs in a non-critical and limited way but can be tested independently for the most part.
    2
    The EIP depends on or modifies one or more other EIPs such that coordinated testing and consideration is required, but interactions are limited in scope and not complex.
    3
    The EIP has strong interdependencies with multiple EIPs, requiring extensive coordinated cross-EIP testing as well as potential re-design of existing test vectors.
    • +1 for every 3 additional interacting EIPs beyond the first 3, each of which requires its own coordinated test cases. List the EIPs in the rationale.
    • This row is intentionally uncapped, unlike every other anchor: each interacting EIP is another axis of the test matrix, so a ceiling would make a 12-EIP product indistinguishable from a 3-EIP one.
  • Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · Checklist revision 2 only
    The EIP text does not determine the answer for cases a test can construct. Clients must agree on a previously unspecified detail before tests can be baselined. The cost here is coordination and re-baselining, not test writing.
    Score anchors
    0
    The EIP text determines the answer for every case a test could construct.
    1
    A few details are unspecified but have an obvious intended reading.
    2
    Details require client agreement before tests can be written, but they are localized.
    3
    A previously unspecified *and previously unobservable* behavior becomes consensus-critical; expect tests to be re-baselined on each round of EIP amendment.
    • Score this from the EIP's state at assessment time: whether it has client implementations, whether it has been through a devnet, and how many open questions remain on its discussion thread.