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

consensus/misc/eip4844: use head's target blobs, not parent #31101

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 4, 2025

Conversation

lightclient
Copy link
Member

@lightclient lightclient commented Jan 30, 2025

This PR is built on #31002.

--

A clarification was made to EIP-7691 stating that at the fork boundary it is required to use the target blob count associated with the head block, rather than the parent as implemented here.

See for more: ethereum/EIPs#9249

@s1na
Copy link
Contributor

s1na commented Feb 3, 2025

The diff to #31002 looks good!

@fjl fjl marked this pull request as ready for review February 4, 2025 10:51
@lightclient lightclient added this to the 1.15.0 milestone Feb 4, 2025
s1na
s1na previously approved these changes Feb 4, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@s1na s1na left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, just 2 nits

@lightclient
Copy link
Member Author

Fixed up based on review comments, thx.

gballet
gballet previously approved these changes Feb 4, 2025
Copy link
Member

@gballet gballet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@gballet gballet merged commit c4ad459 into ethereum:master Feb 4, 2025
3 of 4 checks passed
tokeyg pushed a commit to tokeyg/go-ethereum that referenced this pull request Feb 6, 2025
…#31101)

A clarification was made to EIP-7691 stating that at the fork boundary
it is required to use the target blob count associated with the head
block, rather than the parent as implemented here.

See for more: ethereum/EIPs#9249
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants