Prague Planning - Besu - LF Decentralized Trust Atlassian uses cookies to improve your browsing experience, perform analytics and research, and conduct advertising. Accept all cookies to indicate that you agree to our use of cookies on your device. Atlassian cookies and tracking notice, (opens new window) PreferencesOnly necessaryAccept all LF Decentralized Trust LF Decentralized Trust Spaces Apps Templates Create Besu All content Shortcuts Meetings Meetings  This trigger is hidden How-to articles How-to articles  This trigger is hidden Content Results will update as you type. Code of Conduct Contributing Developing and Conventions Documentation Community Governance Programs & Grants Meetings Design Documents Security Audits Start Here Performance & Stability How-to articles Incident Reports Besu Roadmap & Planning Cancun Planning Enterprise roadmap item detail Prague Planning The Prague Upgrade from Besu Maintainers - The Hot, Cold, & Open-Ended See Performance & Stability for Q4 Roadmap How to Contribute You‘re viewing this with anonymous access, so some content might be blocked. Close Besu / Prague Planning More actions Prague Planning Matt Nelson (Deactivated) gabriel.trintinalia@gmail.com Justin Florentine +2 Owned by Matt Nelson (Deactivated) Last updated: Apr 11, 2024 by gabriel.trintinalia@gmail.com Prague Meta Thread EIP Status T-shirt Size PR Besu POC or Champion?  Notes Driver? EOF EIP-3540 EIP-3670 EIP-4200 EIP-4750 CFI XL Danno Ferrin Let's us ship faster and include more EIPs while giving Verkle more time to build and test. Shippable state in Besu right now. Mega EOF branch is nearly up to date. Engineering work mostly worked out.  Validation rules to be updated. Tests to be updated.  Testnets need implementations from Vyper/Solidity → needs spec freeze. Need compiler support. Timing → Q3 for testnet rollout  Fork gated on time for fuzzing finding nothing. Running week(s) without issue.  Driver? Verkle Tries CFI XXL Karim Taam, Stefan Pingel, Gabriel Fukushima The longer we delay the transition, the bigger the headache. Tons of value to users and devs, but more complexity.  EIP-2537 - BLS Precompile CFI S Justin Florentine Ship - updated to use Gnark? Signature aggregation for smart contract wallets EIP-3068 - BN-256 HashToCurve CFI S Justin Florentine Ship - updated to use Gnark?  EIP-3074 - AUTH and AUTHCALL CFI M/L TBD Should talk to wallet providers  Danno - View unsafe as no revocation. No inclusion without it. Justin - Hesitations from MM team and Consensys EIP-4444 - History Expiry CFI S/M Matt Nelson, Gary Schulte Need to implement Portal proxy in Besu. Entirely optional!  https://notes.ethereum.org/@Kolby-ML/HJ-9D5aYp EIP-6110 - In-Protocol Deposits CFI S 5055 5295 5752 Fabio Di Fabio, Simon Dudley Ship - reference implementation ready EIP-6913 - SETCODE OpCode CFI S Daniel Lehrner Lukewarm - small improvement on status quo   EIP-7002 - Execution layer triggerable exits CFI M 6783, 6801, 6883 Lucas Saldanha Should talk to some staking providers first EIP-7212 - Precompile for Secp256R1  CFI S Matt Nelson EIP-7251 - Maximum Effective Balance Increase CFI NA - CL only EIP-7377 - EOA Upgrade / Migration Transactions CFI ?? Gary Schulte EIP-7547 - Inclusion lists  CFI L or XL Justin Florentine EIP-7549 - Move committee index outside Attestation CFI NA - CL only  Verkle vs. EOF  EOF First, Verkle Second (Pros & Cons) Pros Ready to ship this year. Verkle is not  Necessary step to safely increase the code limit sizes  EOF can be safely codesize uncapped  EOF storage and verkle tree → Compatible by chunking into 32bytes and storing in sequence  Jumpdest validation is what causes issues 31 byte in verkle may be overfitting to legacy EVM impl. Good for zk  Dynamic jumps  Only have static jumps in EOF  Static register reallocation  Stack height validation requirements  Cross-compilation No-code introspection in EOF More time to work on Verkle Cons "Small feature fork scope" might not allow for EOF   Consensus risk (long period of testing?)  Layer 2 zk development will take time to adopt  Verkle First, EOF second  Pros Shorter migration and less state to migrate !!! Less complexity of adding EOF EVM and adding risk Verkle functionality improvements (getting the stuff faster)  More time for L2s to adopt EOF Verkle not mandatory for immediate fork coverage  Cons More time to work on Verkle if we ship second  , multiple selections available, Related content More info Collapse 2022-02-15 Contributor Call 2022-02-15 Contributor Call Besu More like this 2022-08-16 Contributor Call - APAC Friendly Time 2022-08-16 Contributor Call - APAC Friendly Time Besu More like this 2023-10-31 Contributor Call 2023-10-31 Contributor Call Besu More like this 2020-06-09 Besu Contributor Call Agenda 2020-06-09 Besu Contributor Call Agenda Besu More like this 2024-02-20 Contributor Call - US/EMEA Friendly Time 2024-02-20 Contributor Call - US/EMEA Friendly Time Besu More like this 2022-01-11 Besu Contributor Call - Off-Cycle 2022-01-11 Besu Contributor Call - Off-Cycle Besu More like this {"serverDuration": 14, "requestCorrelationId": "60c55989c02c45cf80cb900a9682be29"}