Update EIP-4844: clarify to must be non-nil #7100
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
nice number |
github-actions
bot
added
c-update
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
eth-bot
changed the title
g11tech
previously approved these changes
May 31, 2023
lightclient
force-pushed
the
4844-no-nil-to
branch
from
d6f9226
to
ca3b4f5
Compare
eth-bot
approved these changes
Jun 1, 2023
auto-merge was automatically disabled
June 1, 2023 14:13
Pull request was converted to draft
Co-authored-by: Ansgar Dietrichs <[email protected]>
lightclient
force-pushed
the
4844-no-nil-to
branch
from
5cb1a10
to
1fb71fa
Compare
eth-bot
approved these changes
Jun 1, 2023
20 tasks
6 tasks
yperbasis
added a commit
to erigontech/erigon
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2023
AskAlexSharov
pushed a commit
to erigontech/erigon
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 6, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@karalabe raised a concern that the current transaction type spec in 4844 is not clear on whether a
niltofield is allowed. This PR aims at clarifying any confusion around the correct representation of blob txs.