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.

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

ECIP-1083: Remove Contract Size Limit #249

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Mar 4, 2020
Merged

ECIP-1083: Remove Contract Size Limit #249

Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
8658fc9
fix: remove eip-170
BelfordZ Dec 20, 2019
b8c17aa
fix: discussion-to original issue from eips
BelfordZ Dec 20, 2019
bc6b3b1
fix: rename file to use .md suffix
meowsbits Dec 23, 2019
b2c8385
Update and rename ecip-draft_remove_170.md to ecip-1083.md
soc1c Jan 28, 2020
c22295d
fix: change wip to draft
BelfordZ Feb 12, 2020
e2b4dc0
fix: remove core in type
BelfordZ Mar 3, 2020
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
37 changes: 37 additions & 0 deletions _specs/ecip-draft_remove_170.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
---
ecip: <ECIP number>
title: Remove Contract Size Limit
author: Zachary Belford <@BelfordZ>, Mudit Gupta <@maxsam4>
discussions-to: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/1662
status: WIP
type: Standards Track (Core)
created: 2019-12-20
---

### Abstract

As brought up in the Atlantis HF dev call, [EIP-170](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-170) was added as part of [the ECIP-1054 atlantis upgrade](https://github.com/ethereumclassic/ECIPs/blob/0a4afcab7f9b97993a255079ceba848db2495b45/_specs/ecip-1054.md). There are alternate proposals for solving the disproportionate gas cost and possible DoS vector that are detailed in [the ethereum/eips issues section](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/1662), as well as a number of arguments as to why it hampers smart contract development significantly. This ECIP is to serve as a mirror of such thread, and hopefully get some discourse around reconsidering this change. I've added @maxsam4 as an author as much of this is copy pasted from the afforementioned issue.

### Motivation

Complex dApps require complex smart contracts. I have seen a lot of dApp developers struggle with this and a lot of alternative solutions are being used like using delegate calls. Delegate calls reduce code readability while developing and while verifying source code on tools like etherscan. They also introduce another attack surface and added complexity.

### Specification

As suggested by @jbaylina in [this comment](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/170#issuecomment-258416413):
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1787231/61341343-ba411200-a7fa-11e9-8094-6b248085c9ff.png)

### Rationale

The only reason why contract size was limited was to prevent people from exploiting the fixed costs. We can overcome this by making the costs variable. The suggestion by @jbaylina is more representative of real-world cost of the computation. Fetching is expensive and cache is cheap, and so the cost should be reflected as such.

### Implementation

TBD. Preliminary discussion of alternatives is required.

### References

https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-170
https://github.com/ethereumclassic/ECIPs/blob/0a4afcab7f9b97993a255079ceba848db2495b45/_specs/ecip-1054.md
https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/1662
https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/170