Contract Execution Reverts on Base Network with RETH Node Client
Description
When attempting to execute contract calls on the Base network using RETH node client, transactions are consistently reverting.
Environment
- Network: Base
- Node Client: RETH
Reproduction Steps
- Call RPC method
{
"id": 1,
"method": "eth_call",
"params": [
{
"data": "0x295212be00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003e80000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000bb80000000000000000000000000e8e965a7774367a4f5383ae7e0750d14e476a2200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
"to": "0x92294D631E995f1dd9CeE4097426e6a71aB87Bcf"
},
"0x19BAC31"
]
}
Current Behavior
- Contract calls consistently revert when using RETH node client with error
Request completed with error: execution reverted
Expected Behavior
- Contract calls should execute successfully
- Return expected data from the contract
Hi @tonatoz,
This looks like a RETH-specific compatibility issue with Base network. A few quick debugging suggestions:
Immediate steps:
- Test the same call with op-geth to confirm it's RETH-specific
- Try setting explicit gas limits (e.g., 1M gas) in your RPC call
- Check your RETH version and Base network configuration
Root cause analysis:
- RETH uses different state storage than Geth, which might cause subtle execution differences
- Base has specific optimizations that may not be fully compatible with RETH
- Gas estimation algorithms differ between clients
Potential solutions:
- Update to latest RETH version with Base compatibility fixes
- Use op-geth for Base operations until RETH compatibility improves
- Enable RETH debug logging to see detailed execution traces
Would be helpful to know your RETH version and whether simple ETH transfers work correctly.
This seems like a legitimate Base protocol compatibility issue that warrants investigation. @
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
This issue was closed because it has been inactive for 5 days since being marked as stale.