EIP-4490, reducing gas cost prior to the Merge

EIPS/eip-2645.md

@@ -1,9 +1,15 @@
 ---
 eip: 2645
 title: Hierarchical Deterministic Wallet for Layer-2
+<<<<<<< HEAD
+author: Tom Brand ([email protected]), Louis Guthmann ([email protected])
+discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/hierarchical-deterministic-wallet-for-computation-integrity-proof-cip-layer-2/4286
+status: Draft
+=======
 author: Tom Brand <[email protected]>, Louis Guthmann <[email protected]>
 discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/hierarchical-deterministic-wallet-for-computation-integrity-proof-cip-layer-2/4286
 status: Stagnant
+>>>>>>> upstream/master
 type: Standards Track
 category: ERC
 created: 2020-05-13

EIPS/eip-4490.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+---
+eip: 4490
+title: Second transaction data gas cost reduction
+authors: Louis Guthmann <[email protected]>, Philippe Castonguay <[email protected]>
+discussions-to: XXX
+status: Final
+type: Standards Track
+category: Core
+created: 2021-11-23
+---
+
+## Simple Summary
+We propose to reduce the gas cost of Calldata (`GTXDATANONZERO`) from its current value of 16 gas per byte to 6 gas per byte. The mathematical model is the one used in the works of Sompolinsky and Zohar [1] and Pass, Seeman and Shelat [2], which relates network security to network delay. This model has already been used for EIP-2028. We shall (1) reuse the same model, and (2) base the proposed gas cost on our findings.
+
+## Motivation
+There are a couple of main benefits to accepting this proposal and lowering gas cost of Calldata
+On-Chain Scalability: Generally speaking, higher bandwidth of Calldata improves scalability, as more data can fit within a single block.
+* Layer two scalability: Layer two scaling solutions can improve scalability by moving storage and computation off-chain, but often introduce data transmission instead.
+	- Proof systems such as STARKs and SNARKs use a single proof that attests to the computational integrity of a large computation, say, one that processes a large batch of transactions.
+	- Some solutions use fraud proofs which requires a transmission of merkle proofs
+	- Moreover, one major data availability solution to layer two is to place data on the main chain, via Calldata.
+
+## Specification
+The gas per non-zero byte is reduced from 16 to 6. Gas cost of zero bytes is unchanged.
+
+## Rationale
+Roughly speaking, reducing the gas cost of Calldata leads to potentially larger blocks, which increases the network delay associated with data transmission over the network. This is only part of the full network delay, other factors are block processing time (and storage access, as part of it). Increasing network delay affects security by lowering the cost of attacking the network, because at any given point in time fewer nodes are updated on the latest state of the blockchain.
+
+Yonatan Sompolinsky and Aviv Zohar suggested in [1] an elegant model to relate network delay to network security, and this model is also used in the work of Rafael Pass, Lior Seeman and Abhi Shelat [2]. We briefly explain this model below, because we shall study it theoretically and validate it by empirical measurements to reach the suggested lower gas cost for Calldata. This model has already be discussed as part of EIP-2028. As such, we suggest reusing the same analysis used for EIP-2028, which included measurement of blocksize related to uncle rate.
+
+The empirical data provided by Etherchain.org seems to show little to zero influence under the current load of calldata on the uncle rate, despite the block average size having quadruple in the space of 2 years. This lack of impact suggests that anything lower below an order of magnitude should remain safe for the network. The 6 gas value had already been discussed as part of the migration to Verkle Trees.
+
+Reducing from 16 to 6 gas would improve costs for Optimistic Rollups by 2.4x and improve ZkRollups onchain cost by the same factor. 
+
+We suggested to move to the 6 value earlier under the assumption that both the extra load and the migration to Verkle Trees make the change manageable while providing extremely large value to the L2 ecosystem in the short term.
+
+## Test Cases
+Not relevant
+
+## Reference Implementation
+
+
+## References
+[1] Yonatan Sompolinsky, Aviv Zohar: [Secure High-Rate Transaction Processing in Bitcoin](https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/881.pdf). Financial Cryptography 2015: 507-527
+
+[2] Rafael Pass, Lior Seeman, Abhi Shelat: [Analysis of the Blockchain Protocol in Asynchronous Networks](https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/454.pdf), ePrint report 2016/454
+
+[3] Christian Decker, Roger Wattenhofer: [Information propagation in the Bitcoin network](https://www.gsd.inesc-id.pt/~ler/docencia/rcs1314/papers/P2P2013_041.pdf). P2P 2013: 1-10
+
+[4] Vitalik Buterin: [Uncle Rate and Transaction Fee Analysis](https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/10/31/uncle-rate-transaction-fee-analysis/)
+
+## Copyright
+Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).