Skip to content

add acdt 83 breakout assets #330

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
dionysuzx merged 1 commit into from
Jun 15, 2026
Merged

add acdt 83 breakout assets #330

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
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
105 changes: 105 additions & 0 deletions public/artifacts/acdt-breakouts/2026-06-15_083/cl/chat.txt
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
10:46:22 From Jihoon : https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/5348
10:46:55 From dan (danceratopz) : Replying to "can we announce the ..."

Let's do it after 2780
10:47:21 From Jihoon : https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/issues/5305
10:47:30 From Justin Traglia : Replying to "Perhaps you can walk..."

Yup can do if there’s time at the end
10:47:37 From Enrico Del Fante (tbenr) : Reacted to "Perhaps you can walk..." with 👍
10:52:45 From Barnabas : why do wanna change this now ?
10:52:51 From Barnabas : maybe I missed the precursor
10:53:20 From Barnabas : can we pls focus on 8282?
10:53:37 From Potuz : Yeah I think it’s more important to spend time on 8282
10:53:51 From Potuz : This path is optional and anyone can do whatever they want since it’s not enforceable
10:54:06 From Barnabas : btw 8282 is not even merged in yet
10:54:23 From Potuz : It shouldn’t be merged
10:54:26 From Bharath : We dont have the discuss the builder-api stuff. I didn’t even add it to the agenda. Lets just skip it
10:55:13 From Jihoon : Replying to "why do wanna change ..."

There is an edge case with the existing implementation. See the issue #5305.
10:56:08 From terence : Clients should have batch verify anyway
10:58:15 From Barnabas : we can safely do 512.
10:58:23 From Jun Song : Reacted to "we can safely do 512." with 👍
10:58:32 From pk910 : can we make the dequeue rate variable, so it's passed from the system call?
that way we can adjust it later
10:58:33 From Barnabas : happy with 256
10:58:46 From terence : At least benchmark with clients first but ya we can easily handle that
10:58:51 From Barnabas : Replying to "can we make the dequ..."

that would require a fork too right?
10:59:07 From pk910 : Replying to "can we make the dequ..."

yea, but not a contract change (irregular state change)
11:00:14 From Barnabas : why does it even need to be 0x03 ?
11:00:21 From terence : I prefer no cache at all
11:00:24 From Barnabas : if its a new system contract
11:01:28 From Dustin : listening to logs was very messy
11:01:33 From Barnabas : are we worried to fall back to local block building for two epochs during the fork?
11:02:07 From pk910 : but we could store the deposit slot too?
11:02:35 From Dustin : yeah, I don't see why the builders-at-fork is so critical
11:04:08 From Potuz : I think it’s 3 epochs and not 2 though.
11:06:12 From Dustin : yeah agree with potuz
11:06:40 From terence : That’s bad
11:07:18 From Dustin : "temporary" optimizations which have to be built, tested, and then dismantled are the most pointless
11:08:26 From NC : We are reusing DepositMessage here?
11:17:37 From cayman : Same logic from the process_voluntary_exit builder branch
11:18:18 From Barnabas : 8k epochs
11:19:23 From Barnabas : lets keep it simple as possible
11:19:43 From cayman : Reacted to "lets keep it simple ..." with 👍
11:23:59 From Nico Flaig : lgtm
11:24:04 From terence : Ship it
11:24:26 From Potuz : @terence I think what we need to do is simply enforce BLS signature validation on deposit requests for a 0x03 validator right now and that’s it
11:26:35 From terence : Reacted to "@terence I think what we need to do is simply enforce BLS signature validation on deposit requests for a 0x03 validator right now and that’s it" with 👍
11:27:07 From terence : Beacon state changes is not nice though
11:27:17 From Barnabas : could we not introduce a new concept of “builder-onboarding-fork-epoch” where builder-onboarding-fork-epoch = gloas-fork-epoch - 3 and it would basically activate the system contract 3 epochs before the fork?
11:31:08 From Barnabas : 0xB for Builder
11:31:10 From Barnabas : 😂
11:31:26 From Enrico Del Fante (tbenr) : Reacted to "0xB for Builder" with 🔥
11:31:28 From NC : Reacted to "0xB for Builder" with 🔥
11:32:02 From cayman : for validators, yes
11:32:02 From Dustin : not in general
11:32:12 From Stefan Bratanov : yeah, we have caches for both builders and validators
11:32:17 From Eitan Seri-Levi : Yeah we have a cache
11:32:19 From terence : We have pub key to indices for builder
11:32:29 From Dustin : we have specific optimizations
11:32:35 From Nico Flaig : we only have it for validators right now
11:33:59 From Dustin : Nimbus's gimmick for this means that we can easily add a second ... situational optimization for builders
11:34:28 From brechy : If a validator chooses to be a builder, will it be able to build immediately at fork boundary?
11:34:39 From Barnabas : Replying to "If a validator choos..."

no
11:34:49 From brechy : Reacted to "no" with 👍
11:35:20 From Dustin : how important is it that there's uninterrupted builders?
11:35:32 From Dustin : I mean, they would prefer that it happens, sure
11:35:34 From cayman : lets auction off builder spots :D
11:35:47 From Bharath : Reacted to "lets auction off bui..." with 😂
11:36:47 From Dustin : no, temporary doesn't exist
11:36:50 From Dustin : it's permanent
11:37:11 From cayman : lodestar won't keep any of this optimization code
11:37:11 From Eitan Seri-Levi : I’ll def be deprecating this crap once we fork
11:37:51 From cayman : you're touching the upgrade_to_gloas fn tho...
11:39:24 From cayman : needs to be somehow limited, make it an auction
11:39:26 From NC : Permissioned builders
11:40:23 From Barnabas : I enjoy listening Justin 😂
11:53:06 From cayman : Can titan buy up the first epoch of builders? This is one sketchy thing about using timestamp+new contract to onboard.

Using the old contract for onboarding was cludgy but it did let any number of builders join.
11:53:40 From Dustin : is this useful past the fork? it seems like an optimization which becomes less of an issue past this transition point
11:53:47 From Dustin : this slot/timestamp field
11:53:48 From cayman : Replying to "is this useful past ..."

no
11:54:01 From Dustin : ok, this seems hard to remove later
11:54:34 From Dustin : just let builders skip some slots/epochs
11:54:36 From Dustin : it's ... fine
11:54:51 From Dustin : yes I am
11:55:28 From Justin Traglia : Reacted to "Can titan buy up the..." with 👍
11:56:07 From NC : Not really related: what happen if someone sends a deposit tx to builder deposit contract before the fork transition? Will EL drop it or store it somewhere so it will be put into the execution request after gloas is live?
11:56:25 From Barnabas : Replying to "Not really related: ..."

store it
11:56:29 From Justin Traglia : Reacted to "store it" with 👍
11:56:43 From Nico Flaig : Replying to "Not really related: ..."

they stay queued until the fork
48 changes: 48 additions & 0 deletions public/artifacts/acdt-breakouts/2026-06-15_083/el/chat.txt
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
10:45:53 From Toni Wahrstätter : can we announce the eip-7997 changes (Arachnid instead of system contract) right on? I'll leave a bit early
10:46:21 From dan (danceratopz) : ⛽ EIP-2780 rework - resource-based intrinsic gas (supersedes #11735)
https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/11645
https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/11735
10:46:41 From dan (danceratopz) : Reacted to "can we announce the ..." with 👍
10:46:55 From dan (danceratopz) : Replying to "can we announce the ..."

Let's do it after 2780
10:49:05 From Maria Silva : https://misilva73.github.io/eip-2780-repricing/index.html
10:49:23 From Guru : Reacted to "https://misilva73.gi..." with 👍
10:50:44 From Dragan Rakita : nba 🙂
10:51:00 From dan (danceratopz) : Reacted to "nba 🙂" with 🏀
10:51:02 From Mario Vega : Reacted to "nba 🙂" with 🏀
10:51:08 From nixo : Reacted to "nba 🙂" with 🏀
10:51:39 From Louis : Reacted to "nba 🙂" with 🏀
10:51:44 From dan (danceratopz) : Replying to "can we announce the ..."

🏭 EIP-7997 - pivot to canonical Arachnid keyless factory (heads up)
https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/11783
10:51:54 From Mario Vega : Reacted to "can we announce the ..." with 👍
10:51:57 From felix (eest) : Reacted to "nba 🙂" with 🏀
10:52:10 From Louis : Replying to "can we announce the ..."

We’ve updated the spec and test, thanks to Keri.
I’ve reviewed the PR
10:52:14 From Mario Vega : Reacted to "🏭 EIP-7997 - pivot ..." with 🎉
10:52:35 From dan (danceratopz) : 🧮 EIP-8037 state-create gas - inclusion check, 7928 BAL conflict, refund mechanism
https://github.com/ethereum/execution-specs/pull/2892
https://hackmd.io/@bFEBbZiVSAO0IURh9qzEFg/BJmFYqCeGl
https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/11778
10:53:38 From Marius Van Der Wijden (M) : Aligned
10:54:07 From dan (danceratopz) : Conflict of EIP-7928 and EIP-8037
https://hackmd.io/@bFEBbZiVSAO0IURh9qzEFg/BJmFYqCeGl
10:54:56 From spencer : Replying to "Conflict of EIP-79..."

For this! No issues here from my side
10:55:09 From spencer : Reacted to "nba 🙂" with 🏀
10:57:01 From Gary Rong : https://hackmd.io/GM7jQBGjTZy_9B1-nEfe2A?view
11:01:43 From Dragan Rakita : Don’t have strong opinion on this, both works.
11:02:04 From lightclient : agree
11:03:26 From Luis Pinto | Besu : This benefits implementations as well be cause you don’t need to hold information throughout the tx processing
11:03:47 From Dragan Rakita : Reacted to "This benefits implem..." with 👍
11:05:11 From dan (danceratopz) : ✅ EIP-7904 now Informational - no compute repricing
https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/11622
11:05:26 From dan (danceratopz) : ⛽ EIP-8038 - first preliminary state-access numbers
https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/11802
https://github.com/ethereum/execution-specs/pull/2972
11:05:39 From Mario Vega : Reacted to "✅ EIP-7904 now Infor..." with 👍🏼
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions src/data/breakouts.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -27,4 +27,6 @@ export const breakouts: Breakout[] = [
{ parentPath: 'acdt/078', kind: 'epbs', artifactDir: 'acdt-breakouts/2026-04-20_078/epbs', videoUrl: 'https://youtu.be/BvLC4AE3cyY' },
{ parentPath: 'acdt/082', kind: 'el', artifactDir: 'acdt-breakouts/2026-06-08_082/el', videoUrl: 'https://youtu.be/GZ8EHWnUx_k' },
{ parentPath: 'acdt/082', kind: 'cl', artifactDir: 'acdt-breakouts/2026-06-08_082/cl', videoUrl: 'https://youtu.be/WYVjX_QuIQo' },
{ parentPath: 'acdt/083', kind: 'el', artifactDir: 'acdt-breakouts/2026-06-15_083/el', videoUrl: 'https://youtu.be/3k5QNb2hzKM' },
{ parentPath: 'acdt/083', kind: 'cl', artifactDir: 'acdt-breakouts/2026-06-15_083/cl', videoUrl: 'https://youtu.be/dvYGLINyn-M' },
];