g11tech
g11tech
> This proposal is lacking sufficient detail to be assigned an EIP number. @khajievN could you add more details to this EIP proposal for us to consider it for draft?
> @axic, @g11tech, @gcolvin, @lightclient, @SamWilsn is there anything keeping this from being merged? could you separate out the update from new eip addition please
> Will separating out parallel updates be a standard request of all new EIPs? If so, should that be baked into validation checks? yea I guess we should do that....
approved, not sure why bot isn't working
some linter errors, also we need to update the hardfork reference from block to timestamps
hey @vbuterin. PR title and PR description seems to be at odds. I think this commit from @lightclient was correct. https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/8369/commits/59b9756e3669ea08b03db8d029a7cd93b3f7b6f3
closing the PR as its generating unnecessary noise and seems like a "by mistake" PR. author may reopen again with relevant content
> I think most of the times this does not work, `commonBlockBodyPromiseFn` is triggered before we issue requests to `EL` or `builder` the main thing of the work is to...
hi @NickZCZ this seems to be an ERC proposal, kindly move it to the corresponding repo. Closing it here for now.
> > What is the EIP Interface section used for? > > I don't think it is used for much any more, since ERCs were split off and APIs were...