Transaction data gas cost reduction

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open EIP 2028 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: We propose to reduce the gas cost of Calldata (GTXDATANONZERO) from its current value of 68 gas per byte to 16 gas per byte, to be backed by mathematical modeling and empirical estimates.
3. Name the object that changes: GTXDATANONZERO.
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 2028 at the status the text itself states: Final.
• The object that has to change is GTXDATANONZERO. 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• Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork.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 Transaction data gas cost reduction 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: GTXDATANONZERO?

Terms

EIP 2028

The public text titled Transaction data gas cost reduction.

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

• We propose to reduce the gas cost of Calldata (GTXDATANONZERO) from its current value of 68 gas per byte to 16 gas per byte, to be backed by mathematical modeling and empirical estimates.
• The mathematical model is the one used in the works of Sompolinsky and Zohar [1] and Pass, Seeman and Shelat [2], which relates network security to network delay.
• We shall (1) evaluate the theoretical impact of lower Calldata gas cost on network delay using this model, (2) validate the model empirically, and (3) base the proposed gas cost on our findings.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: The mathematical model is the one used in the works of Sompolinsky and Zohar [1] and Pass, Seeman and Shelat [2], which relates network security to network delay.
• Locate GTXDATANONZERO in EIP 2028 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 2028 when a pitch says 'Transaction data gas cost reduction' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.