make engine_getBlobsV1 non-optional as of Pectra #628
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
All the EL clients from the Pectra Testnet announcement, except Erigon which seems to have indicated support for doing so, support
engine_getBlobsV1already, so this PR recognizes and ratifies this status quo.engine_exchangeCapabilitiesin general doesn't suffice because of TOCTOU concerns around swapping out of ELs at specified endpoints at arbitrary times, plus nuanced and unpredictable interactions with EL/JSON-RPC multiplexers, mean that at best, such capability-probing is still a best-effort gamble.Various advocacy for increased blob count explicitly assumes
engine_getBlobsV1will exist to mitigate increased bandwidth requirement/usage concerns, and asserts that it's fine, so ensure it does, and Ethereum can continue to help L2's scale.