feat(ethereum) <- add eip4844 block header verification #19
Conversation
Oghma
force-pushed
the
eip4844-block-verification
branch
from
133e9eb to
340824d
Compare
Oghma
force-pushed
the
eip4844-block-verification
branch
from
340824d to
db43b1a
Compare
Goerli is now deprecated
…hether eip4844 is active The block number of when Dencun will be realeased on mainnet is not known, only the beacon slot. Reverse the commit after Dencun is released
Oghma
force-pushed
the
eip4844-block-verification
branch
from
70989b3 to
66193ff
Compare
common/ethereum/src/eip_4844.rs
Outdated
| pub fn is_active(&self, block: &EthBlock) -> Result<bool> { | ||
| Ok(block.blob_gas_used.is_some()) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's no need for this to return a Result.
| pub fn is_active(&self, block: &EthBlock) -> Result<bool> { | |
| Ok(block.blob_gas_used.is_some()) | |
| } | |
| pub fn is_active(&self, block: &EthBlock) -> bool { | |
| block.blob_gas_used.is_some() | |
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I kept the same signature of Eip1559::is_active:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes but that one is fallible since activation numbers aren't known for all EthChainIds. Your version has no such constraint.
common/ethereum/src/eip_4844.rs
Outdated
| pub struct Eip4844 {} | ||
|
|
||
| impl Eip4844 { | ||
| #[allow(dead_code)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might as well make this:
| #[allow(dead_code)] | |
| #[cfg(test)] |
instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That function should be removed because it is not used and it will be not used until 66193ff is reverted.
Replacing with #[cfg(test)], clippy warns us with unused import: ethereum_types::U256 therefore the changes should be
| #[allow(dead_code)] | |
| #[cfg(test)] | |
| pub fn get_activation_block_number(&self, eth_chain_id: &EthChainId) -> Result<U256> { | |
| use ethereum_types::U256; |
I would prefer to remove the function instead
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Once we know the activation block number, we may already be past it so it becomes pointless.
Your way of checking the block's contents is sufficient for us to be ready in advance without having to do anything further.
In fact, it's so sufficient we might as well ditch the activation number thing altogether.
The worse case scenario is an attacker trying to submit a block that's not EIP4844 compliant, but with those fields added, at which point it'd fail validation anyway so I see no danger there.
This PR continues the work of #15 by adding block header verification for the new Dencun fork