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

Add draft for ESO (extended state oracle) #2014

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
May 23, 2019
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
94 changes: 94 additions & 0 deletions EIPS/eip-2014.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
---
eip: 2014
title: Extended State Oracle
author: Alex Beregszaszi (@axic)
discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-2014-extended-state-oracle/3301
status: Draft
type: Standards Track
category: Core
created: 2019-05-10
requires: 140
---

## Simple Summary
<!--"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the EIP.-->

## Abstract

Introduce a new system contract with an extensible interface following the [Contract ABI Encoding] to access extended data sets, such as chain identifiers, block hashes, etc.

This allows Ethereum contract languages to interact with this contract as if it were a regular contract and not needing any language support.

## Motivation

Over the past couple of years several proposals were made to extend the EVM with more data. Some examples include extended access to block hashes ([EIP-210]) and chain identifiers ([EIP-1344]).

Adding them as EVM opcodes seems to be using the scarce opcode space for relatively less frequently used features, while adding them as precompiles is perceived as more complicated due to an interface
needs to be defined and agreed on for every case.

This proposal tries to solve both issues with defining an extensible standard interface.

## Specification

A new system contract ("precompile") is introduced at address `0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000009` called ESO (Extended State Oracle).

It can be queried using `CALL` or `STATICCALL` and follows the [Contract ABI Encoding] for the inputs and outputs. Using elementary types in the ABI encoding is encouraged to keep complexity low.

In the future it could be possible to extend ESO to have a state and accept transactions from a system address to store the passed data -- similarly to what [EIP-210] proposed.

Proposals wanting to introduce more data to the state, which is not part of blocks or transactions, should aim to extend the ESO.

At this time it is not proposed to make the ESO into a contract existing in the state, but to include it as a precompile and leave the implementation details to the client.
In the future if it is sufficiently extended and a need arises to have a state, it would make sense to move it from being a precompile and have actual code.

### Chain identifier
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure if this EIP should actually define this section or one of the other chainid EIPs (1344, 1959, 1965) should refer to this and introduce this method.

Similarly I'd propose a simple blockhash implementation based on this EIP.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So the idea is that clients are tasked with maintaining this data, and providing the given data when queried through the precompile contract?

In that scenario, this could supercede the other chain ID proposals for at least historical access, but I would still push to consider EIP-1344 for Istanbul as this functionality will be required very shortly for the growing number of offline-signing implementations to be truly complete (such as those leveraging EIP-712).

The Istanbul deadline is 6 days away, and I am not sure if we can come to consensus on this proposal within that timeframe. Plus, chain ID is already a parameter available in the transaction context, which makes a lot of sense for why it should be an opcode, similar to ORIGIN or GASPRICE opcodes


Initially, a feature to read the current chain identifier is introduced: `getCurrentChainId()` returns the current chain identifier as a `uint64` encoded value.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should return uint256. In the discussions for chain ID, this value currently doesn't not exceed uint64 but at a future point in time it could make sense to use a 32-byte hash reference, that is the computation of a few things (genesis block, current EIPs, etc.)

It should be a non-payable function, which means sending any value would revert the transaction as described in [EIP-140].
This has been proposed as [EIP-1344].

The contract ABI JSON is the following:
```json
[
{
"constant": true,
"inputs": [],
"name": "getCurrentChainId",
"outputs": [
{
"name": "",
"type": "uint64"
}
],
"payable": false,
"stateMutability": "pure",
"type": "function"
}
]
```

This will be translated into sending the bytes `5cf0e8a4` to the ESO and returning the bytes `0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001` for Ethereum mainnet.

**Note:** It should be possible to introduce another interface checking the validity of a chain identifier in the chain history or for a given block (see [EIP-1959] and [EIP-1965]).

## Rationale
<!--The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.-->

## Backwards Compatibility
<!--All EIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. EIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.-->

## Test Cases
<!--Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Other EIPs can choose to include links to test cases if applicable.-->

## Implementation
<!--The implementations must be completed before any EIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the EIP is accepted. While there is merit to the approach of reaching consensus on the specification and rationale before writing code, the principle of "rough consensus and running code" is still useful when it comes to resolving many discussions of API details.-->

## Copyright
Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).

[Contract ABI Encoding]: https://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/latest/abi-spec.html
[EIP-140]: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-140
[EIP-210]: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-210
[EIP-1344]: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1344
[EIP-1959]: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/1959
[EIP-1965]: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/1965