Skip to content

Conversation

destinyae
Copy link

No description provided.

@destinyae destinyae requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner August 7, 2025 22:34
@github-actions github-actions bot added c-update Modifies an existing proposal s-withdrawn This EIP is Withdrawn t-core labels Aug 7, 2025
@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented Aug 7, 2025

File EIPS/eip-908.md

Requires 1 more reviewers from @jamesray1, @MicahZoltu
Requires 1 more reviewers from @lightclient, @SamWilsn, @xinbenlv

@eth-bot eth-bot added the e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus label Aug 7, 2025
@eth-bot eth-bot changed the title Fix outdated link Update EIP-908: Fix outdated link Aug 7, 2025
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 7, 2025

The commit b9e7b28 (as a parent of b43d9e4) contains errors.
Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Aug 7, 2025
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ A miner could create a client and fill their block with transactions that only c

### More details on the access list

The access list prevents anyone inserting any address to the first element of the vector, where there may be a way to prevent censorship and centralization of authority of who decides to register new addresses in the list, e.g. on-chain governance with signalling (possibly similar to [EIP-1015](./eip-1015.md), which also specifies an alternative way of sending funds) or a layer 2 proof of authority network where new addresses can be added via a smart contract. Note that there may be serious drawbacks to implementing either of these listed examples. There is a refutation of [on-chain governance](https://medium.com/@Vlad_Zamfir/against-on-chain-governance-a4ceacd040ca) as well as of [plutocracy](https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html). [Proof of Authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-authority) isn't suitable for a public network since it doesn't distribute trust well. However, using signalling in layer 2 contracts is more acceptable, but Vlad Zamfir argues that using that to influence outcomes in the protocol can disenfranchise miners from being necessary participants in the governance process. Thus, in light of these counterpoints, having an access list may not be suitable until a decentralized, trustless way of maintaining it is implemented and ideally accepted by the majority of a random sample that represents the population of Ethereum users.
The access list prevents anyone inserting any address to the first element of the vector, where there may be a way to prevent censorship and centralization of authority of who decides to register new addresses in the list, e.g. on-chain governance with signalling (possibly similar to [EIP-1015](./eip-1015.md), which also specifies an alternative way of sending funds) or a layer 2 proof of authority network where new addresses can be added via a smart contract. Note that there may be serious drawbacks to implementing either of these listed examples. There is a refutation of [on-chain governance](https://medium.com/@Vlad_Zamfir/against-on-chain-governance-a4ceacd040ca) as well as of [plutocracy](https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html). [Proof of Authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-authority) isn't suitable for a public network since it doesn't distribute trust well. However, using signalling in layer 2 contracts is more acceptable, but Vlad Zamfir argues that using that to influence outcomes in the protocol can disenfranchise miners from being necessary participants in the governance process. Thus, in light of these counterpoints, having an access list may not be suitable until a decentralized, trustless way of maintaining it is implemented and ideally accepted by the majority of a random sample that represents the population of Ethereum users.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

verified that the URL is the only change here though github diff highlighter didn't make it easy here ;)

Copy link
Contributor

@g11tech g11tech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm @SamWilsn might need force merge here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
c-update Modifies an existing proposal e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus s-withdrawn This EIP is Withdrawn t-core w-ci Waiting on CI to pass
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants