Remove SELFDESTRUCT Burn

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open EIP 8246 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 removes the remaining cases where SELFDESTRUCT burns ETH.
3. Name the object that changes: SELFDESTRUCT, ETH, EVM.
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 8246 at the status the text itself states: Last Call.
• The object that has to change is SELFDESTRUCT, ETH, EVM. 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• Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork.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 Remove SELFDESTRUCT Burn 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: SELFDESTRUCT, ETH, EVM?

Terms

EIP 8246

The public text titled Remove SELFDESTRUCT Burn.

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 removes the remaining cases where SELFDESTRUCT burns ETH.
• Accounts marked for selfdestruction still have their code, storage, and nonce cleared at transaction finalization, but any remaining balance is preserved.
• The remaining burn behavior of SELFDESTRUCT is almost completely unused, but it still forces special-case handling in EVM implementations, specifications, and tests.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: Accounts marked for selfdestruction still have their code, storage, and nonce cleared at transaction finalization, but any remaining balance is preserved.
• Locate SELFDESTRUCT, ETH, EVM in EIP 8246 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 8246 when a pitch says 'Remove SELFDESTRUCT Burn' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.