Skip to content
Blockchain LabBlockchain LabTHE VENTURE STUDIO

LibraryData and agents2020Design paperCorpus record

Typed Transaction Envelope

EIP 2718. Micah Zoltu.

EIP 2718, Typed Transaction Envelope. TransactionType || TransactionPayload is a valid transaction and TransactionType || ReceiptPayload is a valid transaction receipt where TransactionType identifies the format of the transaction and Payload is the transaction/receipt contents, which are defined in future EIPs.

Status in the source: Final. A reading of the public specification, not a copy of it and not a certification.

Typed Transaction Envelope is worth reading for the rule it actually adds: TransactionType || TransactionPayload is a valid transaction and TransactionType || ReceiptPayload is a valid transaction receipt where TransactionType identifies the format of the transaction and Payload is the transaction/receipt contents, which are defined in future EIPs.
Evidence
Primary paper
Re-measured
No
Assumptions
3
Records linked
3

Code

Source, repository, and what is actually hosted

  • EIP 2718https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2718
  • The source URL is not a GitHub repository. No code remote is invented.
  • Full text is not mirrored. Public availability is not a licence to copy the file onto this site.
  • Add to a reading list

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 rule

    TransactionType || TransactionPayload is a valid transaction and TransactionType || ReceiptPayload is a valid transaction receipt where TransactionType identifies the format of the transaction and Payload is the transaction/receipt contents, which are defined in future EIPs.

  2. Claim 02 · Paper model

    What was already failing

    An interface that is only a name in a repository will be re-implemented differently by every team, which is how shared contracts break.

  3. Claim 03 · Paper model

    What the number does not mean

    The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

  4. Claim 04 · Paper model

    What a builder should be able to point at

    An implementation either constrains EOA, FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER, MUST or it is a different design.

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 rule

    Observation

    What the study says

    TransactionType || TransactionPayload is a valid transaction and TransactionType || ReceiptPayload is a valid transaction receipt where TransactionType identifies the format of the transaction and Payload is the transaction/receipt contents, which are defined in future EIPs.

    Model

    What has to hold

    You are implementing EIP 2718 at the status the text itself states: Final.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What must an implementation of Typed Transaction Envelope accept, and what may it ignore?

  2. 02 What was already failing

    Observation

    What the study says

    An interface that is only a name in a repository will be re-implemented differently by every team, which is how shared contracts break.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The object that has to change is EOA, FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER, MUST. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Is this consensus, peer policy, or an application interface?

  3. 03 What the number does not mean

    Observation

    What the study says

    The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

    Model

    What has to hold

    You are implementing EIP 2718 at the status the text itself states: Final.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Which names does the text pin down: EOA, FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER, MUST?

  4. 04 What a builder should be able to point at

    Observation

    What the study says

    An implementation either constrains EOA, FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER, MUST or it is a different design.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The object that has to change is EOA, FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER, MUST. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Which names does the text pin down: EOA, FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER, MUST?

03 Sequence

One action, as an operating tape

  1. 01Open EIP 2718 and read the status line before the examples.
  2. 02Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: TransactionType || TransactionPayload is a valid transaction and TransactionType || ReceiptPayload is a valid transaction receipt where TransactionType identifies the format of the transaction and Payload is the transaction/receipt contents, which are defined in future EIPs.
  3. 03Name the object that changes: EOA, FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER, MUST.
  4. 04Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

04 Load-bearing

The argument, and where a pitch drops it

  1. What the text is allowed to settle

    The cut

    Ethereum Improvement Proposal 2718 can settle the shape of Typed Transaction Envelope. It cannot settle whether a later client, a later fork, or a later wallet still does this.

    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

    The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

  2. What this page will not pretend

    The cut

    There is no benchmark, no adoption number, and no claim that the mechanism is safe outside the assumptions written in the source.

    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 in the header is not adoption.

05 Register

What has to be true

  • Model · Not re-measured

    You are implementing EIP 2718 at the status the text itself states: Final.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    The object that has to change is EOA, FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER, MUST. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    Status in the header is not adoption.

06 Divergence

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.

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

An interface that is only a name in a repository will be re-implemented differently by every team, which is how shared contracts break.

What the design proposes

  • TransactionType || TransactionPayload is a valid transaction and TransactionType || ReceiptPayload is a valid transaction receipt where TransactionType identifies the format of the transaction and Payload is the transaction/receipt contents, which are defined in future EIPs.
  • In the past, when we have wanted to add new transaction types we have had to ensure they were backward compatible with all other transactions, meaning that you could differentiate them based only on the encoded payload, and it was not possible to have a transaction that matched both types.
  • This was seen in EIP-155 where the new value was bit-packed into one of the encoded fields.

How the mechanism is specified

  • Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: In the past, when we have wanted to add new transaction types we have had to ensure they were backward compatible with all other transactions, meaning that you could differentiate them based only on the encoded payload, and it was not possible to have a transaction that matched both types.
  • Locate EOA, FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER, MUST in EIP 2718 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

  • This document does not set a fee, a valuation, or a security proof.
  • Status in the header is not adoption.
  • The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

Why the desk still reads it

Use EIP 2718 when a pitch says 'Typed Transaction Envelope' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.

09 Lexicon

Terms, opened into the record

EIP 2718
The public text titled Typed Transaction Envelope.
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.