EIP-7685 Implementation

[rjnrohit]

Fixes Closes Resolves #6387

Changes

This PR implements the following EIPs:

• 7002 : https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7002
• 6110 : https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-6110
• 7685 : https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7685

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce?

• Bugfix (a non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
• New feature (a non-breaking change that adds functionality)
• Breaking change (a change that causes existing functionality not to work as expected)
• Optimization
• Refactoring
• Documentation update
• Build-related changes
• Other: Description

Testing

Requires testing

• Yes
• No

If yes, did you write tests?

• Yes
• No

Notes on testing

Optional. Remove if not applicable.

Documentation

Requires documentation update

• Yes
• No

If yes, link the PR to the docs update or the issue with the details labeled docs. Remove if not applicable.

Requires explanation in Release Notes

• Yes
• No

If yes, fill in the details here. Remove if not applicable.

Remarks

Optional. Remove if not applicable.

dismiss

[rjnrohit]

Does ConsensusRequest need to be serialized to RLP (they are not in BlockBodies)? Do they need to be transmitted through network? That would probably need an RLP change and new eth/XX version? Do they need to be sent through RPC?
Basicly are they transient - just to reply once per NewPayload, or do we need to store them somehow?

They are in block body, we haven't added them to BlockBodyMessageSerializer. @rjnrohit is working on it. They are not transient. They are similar to withdrawals. We need to store them. About RPC - I think they are part of block so it should be in RPC as well. I think we don't need a new version of eth/XX. They need to be transmitted through network

Added!

[LukaszRozmej]

Can we do it as a proper JSON class hierarchy? With ConsensusRequestsType being a discriminating field?