Resurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
See also v1: Alternative bounded-state-friendly address scheme This document describes a scheme for how accounts and storage slots can be stored in a way that allows them to be pruned over time (see...
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
So for users this means they have to spend 21000 gas per year to keep their account active and if they fail to do so they have to pay for a witness proof. Do you have a ballpark of the gas used by a...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Resurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
imkharn: So for users this means they have to spend 21000 gas per year to keep their account active and if they fail to do so they have to pay for a witness proof. Yes. imkharn: If miners are required...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Resurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
imkharn: Do you have a ballpark of the gas used by a witness proof? Around 20k gas per item? Though if we switch to Verkle I could see it changing to something like 40k + 1k gas per item. and all...
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
Thanks for the replies. Now that you mention it, there is even more that can be ignored, in addition to any state that is identical in previous and current epoch (carried over) , it could also include...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Resurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
imkharn: While storage cost to the miner is pretty cheap, so is ignoring a witness transaction for the next highest paying non-witness transaction. Just ignoring witness transactions and picking...
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
I suspect this will work itself out in the end as miners can simply demand a higher inclusion fee for resurrections. I actually had an even simpler solution in mind: witnesses for resurrections cost...
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
Hm, would it require that a smart contract that has something like mapping address -> uint256 would have to store a current mapping value in the user’s account storage at some storage subtree or...
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
I think you can get away with something simpler: the contract has a child contract for each address space, and stores data relevant to accounts in address space e in the storage of the child contract...
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
That would be quite generic, but I had a simpler case in mind for a start. Some notation: an example ERC20 contract named ERC20, user addresses A, B, C, … etc option 1 (as described by the first...
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
One thing that’s worth noting is that the user only needs to provide proofs the first time. The second time the user accesses their ERC20 balance in epoch N, the storage slot would already be stored...
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
Sure, that is clear and implied. Proof size is linear over the number of elapsed epochs, provided only once at the first access at this epoch (if proof is ever required) Read full topic
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
Is this possible to let each EE responsible for state rent/pruning/resurrection? We can have the protocol incentive to each EE, and let EE design how they incentive the user transaction. Eth1 EE can...
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
I like this storage model a lot but I’m not sure it’s a realistic approach in the short/medium term to deal with different epochs within a contract’s storage space. I mean it’s not totally undoable...
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
Hmm, not sure what you mean by this. There’s two distinct ideas: Individual storage slots of a contract are migrated to newer epoch state trees separately There’s the possible extension of allowing a...
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
I was talking about whether a single contract should be able to handle multiple address spaces. And my opinion at the moment is that the answer is no (at least in the short/medium term). What I was...
View ArticleResurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
Got it. Sounds good to me; I have no problem with a contract being bound to a single address space. Read full topic
View ArticleClik here to view.
Resurrection-conflict-minimized state bounding, take 2
Really interesting proposal! My first-pass thoughts: vbuterin: If an account (e,s) is first created during epoch f>e and was never before touched, then the sender of the transaction creating this...
View Article