-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 251
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
Create Gray Glacier spec #537
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Tim Beiko <[email protected]>
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #537 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 77.82% 77.82%
=======================================
Files 333 333
Lines 19243 19243
=======================================
Hits 14976 14976
Misses 4267 4267
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@daniellehrner and I spot checked these numbers and they appear correct. We will incorporate these into besu's gray glacier fork PR, and will update this comment with our calculated fork id.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
spam.
Specification for the Gray Glacier network upgrade.
Rationale for the block offset chosen in EIP-5133 is available here. Calculations used to choose the block height are available here.
Given the speed of the process relative to usual, I would like to get a +1 from each EL client team before merging, cc: @tkstanczak, @garyschulte, @MariusVanDerWijden, @yperbasis. I will also leave this PR open until 15:00 UTC on Wednesday, June 15.