Revert creation in case of non-empty storage

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open EIP 7610 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 causes contract creation to throw an error when attempted at an address with pre-existing storage.
3. Name the object that changes: MUST, NOT, REQUIRED.
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 7610 at the status the text itself states: Last Call.
• The object that has to change is MUST, NOT, REQUIRED. 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• Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork.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 last call. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• What does Revert creation in case of non-empty storage 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: MUST, NOT, REQUIRED?

Terms

EIP 7610

The public text titled Revert creation in case of non-empty storage.

Last Call

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 causes contract creation to throw an error when attempted at an address with pre-existing storage.
• The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 and RFC 8174.
• If a contract creation is attempted due to a creation transaction, the CREATE opcode, the CREATE2 opcode, or any other reason, and the destination address already has either a nonzero nonce, a nonzero code length, or non-empty storage, then the creation MUST throw as if the first byte in the init code were an invalid opcode.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 and RFC 8174.
• Locate MUST, NOT, REQUIRED in EIP 7610 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 last call. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use EIP 7610 when a pitch says 'Revert creation in case of non-empty storage' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.