eth/70 - partial block receipt lists

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open EIP 7975 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: This EIP modifies the 'eth' p2p protocol to allow requesting partial block receipt lists.
3. Name the object that changes: B_32.
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 7975 at the status the text itself states: Review.
• The object that has to change is B_32. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
• Measurements of delay in one year do not travel with the specification.

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

• Which message does eth/70 - partial block receipt lists add, and which old peer must still be answered?
• What does a node do when the short form fails and the full object is required?
• Which names are normative: B_32?

Terms

EIP 7975

The public text titled eth/70 - partial block receipt lists.

Review

The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

A node that cannot fetch, filter, or relay the data it is supposed to validate is not a peer of the network the paper describes.

What the design proposes

• This EIP modifies the 'eth' p2p protocol to allow requesting partial block receipt lists.
• As Ethereum moves toward a higher block gas limit on mainnet, the worst-case total size of a block receipts list also becomes larger, and may eventually exceed the 10MiB message size limit commonly applied in clients.
• Modify the encoding for receipts in the Receipts (0x10) message as follows: - (eth/69): [request-id: P, [[receipt₁, receipt₂], ...]] - (eth/70): [request-id: P, lastBlockIncomplete: {0,1}, [[receipt₁, receipt₂], ...]] If the lastBlockIncomplete flag is set to true (1), the last receipt list does not contain all receipts of the block, and the client will have to request the remaining receipts of that block in a new request.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: As Ethereum moves toward a higher block gas limit on mainnet, the worst-case total size of a block receipts list also becomes larger, and may eventually exceed the 10MiB message size limit commonly applied in clients.
• Locate B_32 in EIP 7975 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 peer protocol is not a consensus rule. A peer can disconnect. A block is still valid or not on its own.
• Measurements of delay in one year do not travel with the specification.
• 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 7975 when a pitch says 'eth/70 - partial block receipt lists' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.