Ethlabs timeline: tracking the Glamsterdam discussion
Records the cancelled Hoodi fork, audit progress, and the distinction between pure repricing and changes to gas accounting.
以太坊研究日报
Glamsterdam is still on hold. The EIP-8037 and EIP-8038 gas repricing could break deployed contracts, the Hoodi fork has been postponed, and the next steps are ACDT on November 16 and ACDE on November 19. Vitalik argues that ETH should be a store of value first rather than a fee-burning token. The post-quantum migration keeps moving, and EIP-8483 has been proposed for Hegotá.

Records the cancelled Hoodi fork, audit progress, and the distinction between pure repricing and changes to gas accounting.
The Hoodi fork planned for October 26 was cancelled on October 22.
A list of 8 invariants published under Marius van der Wijden's name; the November 9 update says 4 reports involving deployed contracts have been received.
For contract developers to check the invariants EIP-8037/8038 may break.
Separates pure repricing from changes to gas accounting; Glamsterdam aims to raise the block gas limit from 60M to 200M.
Proposes that new contracts use V2 opcodes without GAS/GASLIMIT, while old contracts keep the old schedule.
Sam Wilson and others point out compatibility problems with CREATE/DELEGATECALL and with factory and proxy contracts.
One of the core developer positions on Glamsterdam's compatibility constraints.
A reply to criticism of the 8037/8038 compatibility issue.
Argues for handling repricing by lowering prices rather than raising them.
Per the EF timeline, the two EIPs are not on the formal agenda.
Open Q&A with the auditors and the EF; app developers are encouraged to join.
Related to the ACDT #103 presentation of audit results.
Discussion of the audit results and what follows, with no decision committed in advance.
Puts SoV ahead of the fee-burning narrative while keeping the EIP-1559 burn.
Notes that most of the fees burned in 2021 to 2023 came from crypto-internal use cases.
Argues that optimizing burn to support today's market cap would require large R&D spending and heavily interventionist governance.
Mentions concrete work such as formal verification, ossification, Kohaku, FOCIL and lightweight nodes.
Sees Vitalik's framing as close to a consensus the community had largely already reached.
A follow-up to Vitalik's store-of-value argument.
Ties the SoV argument to the post-quantum roadmap.
A follow-up to this week's SoV narrative.
The Ethlabs researcher plans to respond to Vitalik's SoV argument.
Lets a validator's withdrawal address register 32 bytes of post-quantum material, preparing for a future PQ migration fork.
The comment was posted at 03:54 on 2026-11-11.
A proposal for a post-quantum data layer and variable-size blobs.
Includes EIP-8479 and other post-quantum proposals.
Mentions fewer validators on the hot path, erasure-coded P2P, and faster finality with PQ signature aggregation.
Hash-based folding did not beat leanVM's full-verifier recursion.
Agenda in ethereum/pm #2298; the call is on November 11 at 21:00.
The first ratings include Tornado Cash, Uniswap V2/V3 and Safe.
A companion note published the same day as the CROPS guide.
Published on November 4 and reposted by Vitalik on November 7.
Done by Veritylab.
Proposes raising MAX_VERIFY_GAS to 300,000.
Explains that the blob fee can lower GASPRICE.
Continues the EIP-8141 discussion.
A new proposal related to the encrypted mempool.
The call is on November 11 at 22:00.
Signal only; core developers decide.
A tool for application security and insurability.
Based on an idea from Vitalik.
Uses the delay to show how hard upgrading a blockchain is, and talks about Starknet.
A reply during the Glamsterdam compatibility controversy.
A reply to people discussing his own onchain ETH payments.
On AI and data centers.
A reply to Vitalik's view on compute growth.
One of the more active new threads this week.
One of the more active new threads this week.