Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
* Try to clarify the meaning of EIP fields
* Remove unhelpful extra comments in the template
* Change EIP-1491 from CRLF to LF
* Remove template comments from EIPs
* Fix heading: Abstarct -> Abstract
* Update EIP-2014
* Change author list of EIP-1
* Add configuration for marking stale PRs
* Move to the right place
* Add 'greeting' for new contributors
* Better wording for close-pr-message
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net>
* Better wording for stale-pr-message
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net>
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
My stance on this has changed over the years since I created this EIP and while I still am not outright against this change, I better appreciate why the bomb exists and am no longer interested in fighting for its removal. If someone else wants to take over this EIP let me know and we can change the author and move it back into DRAFT.
This EIP hasn't been touched for over 2 years. As an author on the EIP, I don't even remember what it is at this point and after reviewing it I no longer hold any opinions I may have held on the topic two years ago. Unless @jamesray1 plans on pushing for this, I am recommending we mark it as abandoned.
If someone later decides to pick it up again, we can always bring it back to DRAFT.
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
* Updated to Last Call as it has already been implemented in the Client
* Update EIP-868 to Last Call
* Update last call deadline to be 14 days from today
Co-authored-by: Alex Beregszaszi <alex@rtfs.hu>
* Updated to Last Call
This Networking EIP is confirmed already active on the network. I will put it through Last Call to activate the RSS Feed.
* Update last call deadline to be 14 days from today
Co-authored-by: Alex Beregszaszi <alex@rtfs.hu>
Adds a transaction type which contains an access list, a list of addresses and storage keys that the transaction plans to access. Accesses outside the list are possible, but become more expensive. Intended as a mitigation to contract breakage risks introduced by EIP 2929 and simultaneously a stepping stone toward broader use of access lists in other contexts.
This EIP specifies a chunk-based approach to code merkleization with the goal of reducing block witness size in a stateless/partial-stateless ethereum.
Increase the gas cost of SLOAD to 2100, and the CALL opcode family, BALANCE and the EXT* opcode family to 2600. Exempts (i) precompiles, and (ii) addresses and storage slots that have already been accessed in the same transaction. Additionally reforms SSTORE metering and SELFDESTRUCT to ensure "de-facto storage loads" inherent in those opcodes are priced correctly.
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
EIP779 (DAO HF meta EIP) "summarizes" what the DAO fork should do. However, it does not state that the extraData field of the blocks 1920000-1920009 should must be "dao-hard-fork". If someone wishes to implement their own Ethereum client, this is very important, because this gets explicitly tested in ethereum/tests and thus should be put in the "DAO fork summary" EIP.
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
* Add deprecate CALLCODE EIP
* Rename to EIP-2488
* Add discussion URL
* Add requires field and security considerations
* more motivation
* more clarity of backwards compatibility
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
* Tree format conversion by the tree overlay method
* Correct spelling error
* Update EIPS/eip-overlay_tree.md
Co-Authored-By: Alex Beregszaszi <alex@rtfs.hu>
* Update EIPS/eip-overlay_tree.md
Co-Authored-By: Martin Holst Swende <martin@swende.se>
* Update EIPS/eip-overlay_tree.md
Co-Authored-By: Martin Holst Swende <martin@swende.se>
* Review feedback from axic
* Update EIPS/eip-overlay_tree.md
Co-Authored-By: Alex Beregszaszi <alex@rtfs.hu>
* Update EIPS/eip-overlay_tree.md
Co-Authored-By: Alex Beregszaszi <alex@rtfs.hu>
* Integrate review feedback
* merge phase 1 and 2 into a single phase
* No more voting in the phase 1 -> phase 2 transition
* specify phase 1 tests
* Apply some of holiman's feedback
* Update EIPS/eip-2584.md
Co-authored-by: Alex Beregszaszi <alex@rtfs.hu>
* Remove template comments
Co-authored-by: Alex Beregszaszi <alex@rtfs.hu>
Co-authored-by: Martin Holst Swende <martin@swende.se>
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
