Skip to content

LibraryScaling2019Design paperCorpus record

Repricing for trie-size-dependent opcodes

EIP 1884. Martin Holst Swende.

EIP 1884, Repricing for trie-size-dependent opcodes. Repricing certain opcodes, to obtain a good balance between gas expenditure and resource consumption.

Status in the source: Final. A reading of the public specification, not a copy of it and not a certification.

Repricing for trie-size-dependent opcodes is worth reading for the rule it actually adds: Repricing certain opcodes, to obtain a good balance between gas expenditure and resource consumption.

The five-minute read

The rule

Repricing certain opcodes, to obtain a good balance between gas expenditure and resource consumption.

What was already failing

An underpriced or ambiguous EVM rule is not a feature. It is a block that takes longer than the gas limit claimed, or a client that disagrees about the result.

What the number does not mean

The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

What a builder should be able to point at

An implementation either constrains CPU, SLOAD, BALANCE or it is a different design.

One action, walked through

  1. Open EIP 1884 and read the status line before the examples.
  2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: Repricing certain opcodes, to obtain a good balance between gas expenditure and resource consumption.
  3. Name the object that changes: CPU, SLOAD, BALANCE.
  4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What the text is allowed to settle

Ethereum Improvement Proposal 1884 can settle the shape of Repricing for trie-size-dependent opcodes. It cannot settle whether a later client, a later fork, or a later wallet still does this.

What this page will not pretend

There is no benchmark, no adoption number, and no claim that the mechanism is safe outside the assumptions written in the source.

What has to be true

  • You are implementing EIP 1884 at the status the text itself states: Final.
  • The object that has to change is CPU, SLOAD, BALANCE. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
  • Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork. Cite the EIP number and the fork you mean.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

  • What does Repricing for trie-size-dependent opcodes charge, reject, or redefine on the first touch versus a later one?
  • Does a reverted subcall roll the change back?
  • Can you point at the object in a client: CPU, SLOAD, BALANCE?

Terms

EIP 1884
The public text titled Repricing for trie-size-dependent opcodes.
Final
The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

An underpriced or ambiguous EVM rule is not a feature. It is a block that takes longer than the gas limit claimed, or a client that disagrees about the result.

What the design proposes

  • Repricing certain opcodes, to obtain a good balance between gas expenditure and resource consumption.
  • The growth of the Ethereum state has caused certain opcodes to be more resource-intensive at this point than they were previously.
  • This EIP proposes to raise the gasCost for those opcodes.

How the mechanism is specified

  • Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: The growth of the Ethereum state has caused certain opcodes to be more resource-intensive at this point than they were previously.
  • Locate CPU, SLOAD, BALANCE in EIP 1884 and apply it to one transaction or call.
  • Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • A gas or opcode change is not a throughput benchmark. It is a relative price and a validity rule.
  • Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork. Cite the EIP number and the fork you mean.
  • The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use EIP 1884 when a pitch says 'Repricing for trie-size-dependent opcodes' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.