Franco Victorio

> Is that the recommended approach? I'd say that adding custom hardfork histories, as you are doing, is a slightly better approach, because that way you don't have to mine...

Isn't that check part of [the EIP-1559 spec](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1559)? Specifically: ```python # The total must be the larger of the two assert transaction.max_fee_per_gas >= transaction.max_priority_fee_per_gas ``` That being said, Hardhat shouldn't...

From #4: > 1559 data is tracked as part of https://github.com/mds1/evm-diff/issues/31, unsure yet if its feasible to detect parameter values automatically. While I suspect that 1559 parameters are hard to...

I looked a bit into this, trying to find a way to detect support for EIP-1559 and EIP-4844 txs. ### EIP-1559 My first attempt was to just make an `eth_call`...

Access lists are even easier than I thought: just use `estimateGas` with a plain call with and without an access list entry, and they will return different results, because access...

> Could an alternative here be to use eth_estimateGas with maxFeePerGas and maxPriorityFeePerGas fields? How that would work? The gas price shouldn't affect the gas estimate in almost all cases....

Hi @itasli, thanks for this PR, but I think this is a bit more involved than just bumping the dependency. Also, it's a significant change, so we need to do...

Good to know in advance that there won't be any surprises when testing this manually, that should help us prioritize this!

Can you share the stack trace where it fails at runtime? If I'm understanding correctly, this shouldn't happen (I mean, fields other than the "predefined" ones shouldn't be used in...

Oh, I see. I'm not sure what the right solution is here. I guess we could stop resolving the other entries from `paths` and just pass them down as they...