Embedding transaction status code in receipts

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open EIP 658 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: This EIP replaces the intermediate state root field of the receipt with a status code indicating if the top-level call succeeded or failed.
3. Name the object that changes: REVERT, EIP140, EIP98.
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 658 at the status the text itself states: Final.
• The object that has to change is REVERT, EIP140, EIP98. 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• Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork.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 Embedding transaction status code in receipts 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: REVERT, EIP140, EIP98?

Terms

EIP 658

The public text titled Embedding transaction status code in receipts.

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

• This EIP replaces the intermediate state root field of the receipt with a status code indicating if the top-level call succeeded or failed.
• With the introduction of the REVERT opcode in EIP140, it is no longer possible for users to assume that a transaction failed iff it consumed all gas.
• As a result, there is no clear mechanism for callers to determine whether a transaction succeeded and the state changes contained in it were applied.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: With the introduction of the REVERT opcode in EIP140, it is no longer possible for users to assume that a transaction failed iff it consumed all gas.
• Locate REVERT, EIP140, EIP98 in EIP 658 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 658 when a pitch says 'Embedding transaction status code in receipts' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.