Skip to content
Blockchain LabTHE VENTURE STUDIO

LibraryData and agents2019Design paperCorpus record

"Hardfork Meta: Muir Glacier"

EIP 2387. James Hancock.

A desk note on EIP 2387 ("Hardfork Meta: Muir Glacier"). The file's status is Final. The note records the text. It does not measure who runs it.

Status on the file: Final. A reading of the public text, not a client release note.

EIP 2387, "Hardfork Meta: Muir Glacier". Status written on the file: Final. The number is not a rule until you have read that file.
Evidence
Primary paper
Re-measured
No
Assumptions
3
Records linked
3

01 Claim ledger

What the paper is allowed to say

Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.

  1. Claim 01 · Paper model

    The defect

    A client, a contract, or a wallet can cite EIP 2387 and still implement a different document.

  2. Claim 02 · Paper model

    The text

    The file's own opening line says: This meta-EIP specifies the changes included in the Ethereum hard fork named Muir Glacier.

  3. Claim 03 · Paper model

    The label

    The status written on the file is Final. A label is not a deployment.

  4. Claim 04 · Paper model

    The bound

    This note does not add a parameter, a yield, a supply figure, or a legal conclusion.

02 Three cuts

Observation, model, falsifier

A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.

  1. 01 The defect

    Observation

    What the study says

    A client, a contract, or a wallet can cite EIP 2387 and still implement a different document.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The object named by the title is the object under discussion. A citation of the number in a later document is not this text.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Does the primary file still title itself "Hardfork Meta: Muir Glacier"?

  2. 02 The text

    Observation

    What the study says

    The file's own opening line says: This meta-EIP specifies the changes included in the Ethereum hard fork named Muir Glacier.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The object named by the title is the object under discussion. A citation of the number in a later document is not this text.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Does the primary file still title itself "Hardfork Meta: Muir Glacier"?

  3. 03 The label

    Observation

    What the study says

    The status written on the file is Final. A label is not a deployment.

    Model

    What has to hold

    You are reading EIP 2387 at the status the file states: Final.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Is the status on that file still Final, or has an editor moved it?

  4. 04 The bound

    Observation

    What the study says

    This note does not add a parameter, a yield, a supply figure, or a legal conclusion.

    Model

    What has to hold

    No parameter in this note was added by Blockchain Lab.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Does the primary file still title itself "Hardfork Meta: Muir Glacier"?

03 Sequence

One action, as an operating tape

  1. 01Open EIP 2387 and read the title against the number.
  2. 02Treat the status as the editor's label on that date, then check whether the file has moved.
  3. 03If a pitch needs a figure, the figure has to be in the primary text. It is not supplied here.

04 Load-bearing

The argument, and where a pitch drops it

  1. Number is not mechanism

    The cut

    EIP 2387 means the file titled "Hardfork Meta: Muir Glacier", not every later post that cites the number.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    Quoting the number without the title is how two teams end up signing different rules.

  2. Status is not shipping

    The cut

    Final tells you how the editors class the text. It does not tell you which client binary you are running.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    Status Final is not evidence that any node you run has shipped the change.

  3. Authors are on the file

    The cut

    The preamble names James Hancock. A marketing page with the same title is not this authorship.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    Quoting the number without the title is how two teams end up signing different rules.

05 Register

What has to be true

  • Model · Not re-measured

    You are reading EIP 2387 at the status the file states: Final.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    The object named by the title is the object under discussion. A citation of the number in a later document is not this text.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    No parameter in this note was added by Blockchain Lab.

06 Divergence

What happened after the paper

Later files can finalise, stagnate, or replace this number. Cite the file you opened, including its status, not a memory of the number.

A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.

07 Pre-mortem

What to check before you use the idea

  4. 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.

08 Anatomy

The paper, in the order a builder needs

The problem it names

A client, a contract, or a wallet can cite EIP 2387 and still implement a different document. The defect is a shared number with an unread title.

What the design proposes

  • The file's own opening line says: This meta-EIP specifies the changes included in the Ethereum hard fork named Muir Glacier.
  • The status written on the file is Final. That is an editorial label, not a client version and not a market fact.
  • The authors named on the file are James Hancock. A later erratum is still this number. A different mechanism needs a different number.

How the mechanism is specified

  • What the title puts in scope is "Hardfork Meta: Muir Glacier". Neighbour documents that mention EIP 2387 are not this text.
  • The file dates the text to 2019. That is the preamble date, not the date any network enforced the change.
  • Adoption, fees, and a client's binary are outside the file. They are not implied by a Final, Draft, Review, or Stagnant label.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • Status Final is not evidence that any node you run has shipped the change.
  • This note does not add a parameter, a yield, a supply figure, or a legal conclusion.
  • Quoting the number without the title is how two teams end up signing different rules.

Why the desk still reads it

EIP 2387, "Hardfork Meta: Muir Glacier". Status written on the file: Final. The number is not a rule until you have read that file.

09 Lexicon

Terms, opened into the record

EIP 2387
The public text titled "Hardfork Meta: Muir Glacier".
Final
The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

10 Repository

Every linked record on this page

Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.

Protocols

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.