Add gas limit increase EIP #9678

Sophia-Gold · 2025-04-23T04:03:42Z

EIP to recommend a new gas limit by the time Fusaka is released and update EL default configs.

eth-bot · 2025-04-23T04:04:06Z

File `eip-7935.md`

Requires 1 more reviewers from @g11tech, @SamWilsn, @xinbenlv

bomanaps · 2025-04-23T12:58:04Z

eip-xxxx.md

+title: Gas Limit Testing
+description: Test the gas limit up to 150M and recommend a new value for Fusaka
+author: Sophia Gold (@sophia-gold), Parithosh Jayanthi (@parithoshj), Toni Wahrstätter (@nerolation), Carl Beekhuizen (@CarlBeek), Ansgar Dietrichs (@adietrichs), Dankrad Feist (@dankrad), Alex Stokes (@ralexstokes), Matt Garnett (@lightclient), Josh Rudolph (@jrudolph)
+discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/your-discussion-thread


This link — https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/your-discussion-thread — leads to this: Oops! That page doesn’t exist or is private.

Your link should look more like this: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-7891-hierarchical-nfts-with-splitting-and-merging/22986

bomanaps · 2025-04-23T13:20:15Z

eip-xxxx.md

+
+## Motivation
+
+There is currently great interest in scaling L1 execution. This can likely be done to some extent without implementing any new features. However, we expect to find bugs in clients at higher gas limits than currently used on mainnet. This will require time from client developers both to test and to fix any bugs that arise, time that could have been spent developing and testing new features, therefore it makes sense to include as an EIP in a hard fork to commit to this.


To have stronger motivation, there are still some missing requirements for this section:

Clearly state the current gas limit and its technical limitations

Explain the specific problems users and developers face due to these limitations

Provide context for why this change matters

I think this is sufficient motivation and that expanding it to include "why performance matters" would be a negative signal to the community.

If so, then it shouldn't be under "motivation". It's circularly/farcically written currently.

The motivation is that people care.

If you really think it's a net negative signal which you're determined to avoid, just maybe don't pretend to have a "Motivation" section? And let people judge it as an EIP on that basis.

bomanaps · 2025-04-23T13:23:02Z

eip-xxxx.md

+## Specification
+
+Devnets will be stood up with nodes running all combinations of EL and CL clients in order to test if a gas limit of 60M is safe. Synthetic transactions will be created until blocks are full, and network and node health monitored. If bugs are discovered, client teams will patch them and then start the process again. If everything looks good, the gas limit will be increased incrementally until we have a devnet running smoothly with full blocks at a gas limit of 150M.
+
+As part of the Fusaka release cycle, client teams will reach consensus on a gas limit validated to be safe through this testing process and test it first on all testnets before adding it to default configs for mainnet.


This is describing a testing process and future actions, not the actual technical specification of what's being changed. The Specification section should focus only on "what" the change does, specification should define parameters, functions, and behaviors.

Moved this to Rationale and added a more concrete Specification

eip-xxxx.md

SamWilsn · 2025-04-23T14:35:35Z

eip-xxxx.md

+---
+eip: xxxx
+title: Gas Limit Testing
+description: Test the gas limit up to 150M and recommend a new value for Fusaka


Purely from the title and description (it'll be a bit before I can properly review), this is written more like a project proposal than an EIP.

You should write the recommended technical change with a placeholder, so something like "Increase the block gas limit to Y" in the draft. Then after you do the research, replace the placeholder with the value you determine.

lightclient · 2025-04-23T16:44:50Z

eip-xxxx.md

+author: Sophia Gold (@sophia-gold), Parithosh Jayanthi (@parithoshj), Toni Wahrstätter (@nerolation), Carl Beekhuizen (@CarlBeek), Ansgar Dietrichs (@adietrichs), Dankrad Feist (@dankrad), Alex Stokes (@ralexstokes), Josh Rudolph (@jrudolph), Giulio Rebuffo (@Giulio2002), Storm Slivkoff (@sslivkoff)
+discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/your-discussion-thread
+status: Draft
+type: Core


Suggested change

type: Core

type: Informational

Since defaults are not part of the protocol, but client configurations, this would need to be informational like EIP-7840.

eip-xxxx.md

github-actions · 2025-04-23T17:26:53Z

The commit f47fef3 (as a parent of 333b01c) contains errors.
Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

lightclient · 2025-04-23T22:10:50Z

eip-xxxx.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+eip: xxxx


Suggested change

eip: xxxx

eip: 7935

please also update the file name!

g11tech · 2025-04-24T07:40:42Z

eip-7935.md

+title: Set default gas limit to XX0M
+description: Recommend a new gas limit value for Fusaka and update execution layer client default configs
+author: Sophia Gold (@sophia-gold), Parithosh Jayanthi (@parithoshj), Toni Wahrstätter (@nerolation), Carl Beekhuizen (@CarlBeek), Ansgar Dietrichs (@adietrichs), Dankrad Feist (@dankrad), Alex Stokes (@ralexstokes), Josh Rudolph (@jrudolph), Giulio Rebuffo (@Giulio2002), Storm Slivkoff (@sslivkoff)
+discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-xxxx-set-default-gas-limit-to-xx0m/23789


please remove xxxx from the url (so fix the url as well)

g11tech · 2025-04-24T07:44:21Z

eip-7935.md

+
+## Motivation
+
+There is currently great interest in scaling L1 execution. This can likely be done to some extent without implementing any new features. However, it requires guidance from EL devs as we expect to find bugs in clients at higher gas limits than currently used on mainnet. This will require time from client developers both to test and to fix any bugs that arise, time that could have been spent developing and testing new features, therefore it makes sense to include as an EIP in a hard fork to commit to this.


Suggested change

There is currently great interest in scaling L1 execution. This can likely be done to some extent without implementing any new features. However, it requires guidance from EL devs as we expect to find bugs in clients at higher gas limits than currently used on mainnet. This will require time from client developers both to test and to fix any bugs that arise, time that could have been spent developing and testing new features, therefore it makes sense to include as an EIP in a hard fork to commit to this.

There is currently great interest in scaling L1 execution. This can likely be done to some extent without implementing any new features. However, it requires guidance from EL devs as we expect to find bugs in clients at higher gas limits than currently used on mainnet. This will require time from client developers both to test and to fix any bugs that arise, therefore it makes sense to include as an EIP in a hard fork to commit to this.

that line seems like arguing against the EIP to not spend time on this

g11tech · 2025-04-24T07:46:18Z

eip-7935.md

+
+## Abstract
+
+The gas limit on mainnet is currently 36M. This should be significantly increased by the time Fusaka is released by execution layer clients updating their default configurations.


Suggested change

The gas limit on mainnet is currently 36M. This should be significantly increased by the time Fusaka is released by execution layer clients updating their default configurations.

The gas limit on mainnet is currently 36M. This should be significantly increased to XX0M by the time Fusaka is released by execution layer clients updating their default configurations.

also add a html marker <--TODO--> for bots to flag this if you try moving post draft without filling this limit

g11tech · 2025-04-24T07:47:04Z

eip-7935.md

+
+## Specification
+
+Execution layer clients have different configuration formats. They should all update the gas limit value generated in their default configurations to the one specified in this EIP.


Suggested change

Execution layer clients have different configuration formats. They should all update the gas limit value generated in their default configurations to the one specified in this EIP.

Execution layer clients have different configuration formats. They should all update the gas limit value in their default configurations to XX0M.

g11tech · 2025-04-24T07:48:55Z

eip-7935.md

+
+## Rationale
+
+Devnets will be stood up with nodes running all combinations of EL and CL clients in order to test if a gas limit of 60M is safe. Synthetic transactions will be created until blocks are full, and network and node health monitored. If bugs are discovered, client teams will patch them and then start the process again. If everything looks good, the gas limit will be increased incrementally.


this is not rationale but testing details

Moved to Security Considerations

noelportillo

That's a good thing because I'm going back

Sophia-Gold requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner April 23, 2025 04:03

github-actions bot added c-new Creates a brand new proposal s-draft This EIP is a Draft labels Apr 23, 2025

eth-bot added the e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus label Apr 23, 2025

github-actions bot added the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Apr 23, 2025

bomanaps reviewed Apr 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

benaadams reviewed Apr 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

eip-xxxx.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

SamWilsn reviewed Apr 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

Sophia-Gold force-pushed the gas-limit-testing branch from d24fa17 to d6a855b Compare April 23, 2025 16:17

Sophia-Gold changed the title ~~Add gas limit testing EIP~~ Add gas limit increase EIP Apr 23, 2025

Sophia-Gold mentioned this pull request Apr 23, 2025

All Core Devs - Execution (ACDE) #210, April 24 ethereum/pm#1462

Closed

lightclient requested changes Apr 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

Sophia-Gold force-pushed the gas-limit-testing branch 3 times, most recently from f969e3f to f47fef3 Compare April 23, 2025 17:26

github-actions bot added the t-informational label Apr 23, 2025

lightclient reviewed Apr 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

Sophia-Gold force-pushed the gas-limit-testing branch from f47fef3 to 82037e1 Compare April 23, 2025 22:23

github-actions bot removed the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Apr 23, 2025

lightclient previously approved these changes Apr 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

g11tech reviewed Apr 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

timbeiko mentioned this pull request Apr 24, 2025

All Core Devs - Execution (ACDE) #211, May 8 ethereum/pm#1500

Closed

Sophia-Gold dismissed lightclient’s stale review via 6ade992 May 1, 2025 20:21

Sophia-Gold force-pushed the gas-limit-testing branch from 82037e1 to 6ade992 Compare May 1, 2025 20:21

add gas limit increase EIP

8c88bf1

Sophia-Gold force-pushed the gas-limit-testing branch from 6ade992 to 8c88bf1 Compare May 1, 2025 20:23

lightclient approved these changes May 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

lightclient merged commit 636a227 into ethereum:master May 2, 2025
12 of 15 checks passed

noelportillo reviewed Jul 22, 2025

View reviewed changes


		## Motivation

		There is currently great interest in scaling L1 execution. This can likely be done to some extent without implementing any new features. However, we expect to find bugs in clients at higher gas limits than currently used on mainnet. This will require time from client developers both to test and to fix any bugs that arise, time that could have been spent developing and testing new features, therefore it makes sense to include as an EIP in a hard fork to commit to this.


		## Abstract

		The gas limit on mainnet is currently 36M. This should be significantly increased by the time Fusaka is released by execution layer clients updating their default configurations.


		## Specification

		Execution layer clients have different configuration formats. They should all update the gas limit value generated in their default configurations to the one specified in this EIP.


		## Rationale

		Devnets will be stood up with nodes running all combinations of EL and CL clients in order to test if a gas limit of 60M is safe. Synthetic transactions will be created until blocks are full, and network and node health monitored. If bugs are discovered, client teams will patch them and then start the process again. If everything looks good, the gas limit will be increased incrementally.

Add gas limit increase EIP #9678

Add gas limit increase EIP #9678

Uh oh!

Conversation

Sophia-Gold commented Apr 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

eth-bot commented Apr 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

File eip-7935.md

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sophia-Gold Apr 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Apr 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

g11tech Apr 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

g11tech Apr 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

noelportillo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

9 participants

Sophia-Gold commented Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

eth-bot commented Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

File `eip-7935.md`

Sophia-Gold Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

g11tech Apr 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

g11tech Apr 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading