eip-2565: rework it #2955
eip-2565: rework it #2955
Conversation
|
Hi! I'm a bot, and I wanted to automerge your PR, but couldn't because of the following issue(s):
|
EIPS/eip-2565.md
Outdated
| The current gas pricing formula is defined in [EIP-198](eip-198.md) as: | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| floor(mult_complexity(max(length_of_MODULUS, length_of_BASE)) * max(ADJUSTED_EXPONENT_LENGTH, 1) / GQUADDIVISOR) | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Defining old behavior feels out of scope for a specification. Can we just leave this bit out, or move it to the rationale section or something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As the original specification in this case is rather small, I think it makes sense to include it here. It puts the specified change in context, so the reader can understand what the effect of the EIP is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, the description of the previous behaviour was present before this PR (but it was not correct). I'll leave it in, for now, but I guess the final say won't be up to me
|
|
||
| ## Appendix | ||
|
|
||
| ### Abandoned option : Modify ‘computational complexity’ function and add minimum gas cost | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider moving this to the rationale (that section is intended to represent why certain choices were made in this EIP) rather than a non-standard Appendix section.
|
|
||
| ## Rationale | ||
|
|
||
| ### **Recommended** Option (1): Modify ‘computational complexity’ formula | ||
| A comparison of the current ‘complexity’ function and the proposed function described above can be found at the following [spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-xBzA-2-l2ZQDQ1eh3XXGZjcRSBQ_Hnp7NubXpbiSUY/edit?usp=sharing). | ||
|
|
||
|  |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are no longer options, so the asset title "Option 1 Graph" no longer makes sense.
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <[email protected]>
|
Also, if the option that is currently "the one" is indeed the way I parsed and rewrote it, without a minimum So please advice... |
|
If I use a minimum value of |
|
Maybe worth checking the feedback on #2892 also. |
|
Ah, yes, indeed relevant! |
|
Thanks for the start to re-working this EIP @holiman . If you could please keep this open for the next couple days I will incorporate your feedback into #2892 . Once that is done we can close this issue and focus on that PR. Appreciate you taking the time to provide some proposed fixes and helping with the process. |
The EIP-2565 is totally out of sync with the spec on the discussions-to, and also does not make sense, as
20to3),198is actually not correct,Discussion at https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-2565-big-integer-modular-exponentiation-eip-198-gas-cost/4150/5
This PR is not ready to merge, just a starting point for rewriting it.
Primarily, it needs filling on the gas-table of testcases, and I'd rather have the authors do that, to ensure that the values used for the benchmarkings/charts matches with what's in the testcases.