GETCONTRACT opcode

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open EIP 7784 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: This is a proposal to add a new opcode, GETCONTRACT.
3. Name the object that changes: GETCONTRACT.
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 has to be true

• You are implementing EIP 7784 at the status the text itself states: Review.
• The object that has to change is GETCONTRACT. 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• Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork.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 review. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• What does GETCONTRACT opcode 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: GETCONTRACT?

Terms

EIP 7784

The public text titled GETCONTRACT opcode.

Review

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

• This is a proposal to add a new opcode, GETCONTRACT.
• The GETCONTRACT opcode would return the address containing the bytecode by its hash.
• Content addressing by hash is a common pattern in database design.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: The GETCONTRACT opcode would return the address containing the bytecode by its hash.
• Locate GETCONTRACT in EIP 7784 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• Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork.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 review. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use EIP 7784 when a pitch says 'GETCONTRACT opcode' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.