Ethereum developers have put forward competing ways to prevent proposed changes to Glamsterdam gas fees from disrupting existing smart contracts. Leo Glisic and Giulio Rebuffo submitted separate drafts on November 8, Crypto News reported.

The proposed pricing changes could leave some decentralized applications, or dApps, charging users a different amount from what they pay to process transactions, according to bloomingbit. The outlet also reported that CryptoSlate had raised a separate warning about the possible reuse of wallet approval data after failed transactions.

How Glamsterdam gas fees affect billing

The proposed changes to Glamsterdam gas fees include EIP-8037 and EIP-8038, which would alter the cost of storing and accessing data, bloomingbit reported. The two proposals change how Ethereum charges for creating and accessing blockchain state.

According to bloomingbit, the concern is that a dApp's actual gas costs could diverge from the amounts it bills users. A service that processes transactions for users might collect either less or more than it spends on fees, the outlet reported.

Applications that hardcoded gas-cost assumptions into their billing systems need to update that code, according to kucoin. The outlet reported that projects with custom fee estimates, including exchanges, lending platforms and gaming applications, are particularly likely to need changes.

Projects that do not update their billing logic before the rollout could face incorrect fee estimates or other errors visible to users, kucoin reported. The outlet described Glamsterdam as one of several planned Ethereum upgrades intended to improve scalability and efficiency.

The drafts also set out changes to individual gas charges, according to Analytics Insight. The publication reported that the state charge for creating an account would rise to 183,600 gas from 25,000, while creating a contract would carry that state charge plus a 12,000-gas execution charge, excluding code storage.

Competing proposals for existing contracts

Glisic and Rebuffo have offered different approaches to introducing the proposed Glamsterdam gas fees without disrupting contracts already running on Ethereum, according to Crypto News. Neither proposal has been approved for inclusion in the upgrade, the publication reported.

Glisic's EIP-8488 would keep the existing gas rules for deployed contracts while introducing a separate set of instructions for new ones, Crypto News reported. New contracts would use V2 instructions that follow the revised pricing in EIP-8037 and EIP-8038.

In his submission, Glisic wrote, "Existing contracts keep the legacy schedule." Analytics Insight reported that the draft also places conditions on interactions between newly deployed contracts and older code.

Rebuffo's draft instead proposes two gas-accounting systems within each transaction, according to Crypto News. The publication reported that one would measure contract execution under the previous rules, while the other would calculate the transaction fee using the revised pricing.

Under that design, a transaction would stop if its billing allowance ran out, even if the old-rule counter still showed gas available, Analytics Insight reported. Crypto News reported that the draft acknowledges that no execution-client implementation or consensus tests have been completed for the design.

Security warnings and developer review

Some existing contracts depend on fixed gas costs, so changes to Glamsterdam gas fees could make transactions fail or disrupt applications that cannot be modified once deployed, Crypto News reported. The publication said security firm ChainSecurity had identified eight assumptions used by existing contracts that could become invalid under the proposed rules.

Pseudonymous developer banteg warned that an existing analysis had identified roughly 200,000 potentially affected contracts and that methodological problems could mean the actual number is higher. Crypto News reported that, in banteg's assessment, the issue reaches beyond isolated coding mistakes to encompass how several prominent protocols are deployed and operated.

CryptoSlate warned that failed transactions under certain conditions could allow wallet approval data to be reused, potentially enabling an attacker to seize control of a wallet, according to bloomingbit. The Ethereum Foundation plans to incorporate review findings into the final Glamsterdam design, the outlet reported.

On November 6, the foundation asked developers to examine how the gas-calculation changes could affect existing applications, CryptoSlate reported on November 7, according to bloomingbit. In a November 6 statement, Ethereum Foundation developer Marius van der Wijden said ChainSecurity and Dedaub were assisting the foundation in assessing affected applications and collecting feedback from developers.

Curve Finance founder Michael Egorov warned that the upgrade could cause serious problems if developers proceed without addressing the risks, Crypto News reported. The publication also reported that security researcher pcaversaccio argued Glamsterdam should not be deployed in its current form.

Delayed testing and next steps

Glamsterdam's October 26 activation on the Hoodi test network was postponed after developers raised concerns about the effects of revised gas rules on contracts already deployed on Ethereum, Crypto News reported. The postponement applied to changes at the Amsterdam execution layer and Gloas consensus layer, as well as a proposed increase of Hoodi's gas limit to 200 million.

During an October 29 developers' meeting, a further private test was tentatively discussed, with November 16 to 20 as the earliest possible window, according to Crypto News. The publication reported that this schedule was drawn up before the two competing proposals were submitted.

Glamsterdam remains in testing as developers assess risks connected to gas accounting, kucoin reported. Analytics Insight reported that no replacement Hoodi date or confirmed mainnet launch had been announced.

Conclusion

The proposed gas-pricing changes have raised questions about both dApp billing and the execution of existing contracts. Developers have submitted competing approaches, but neither has been approved for Glamsterdam, according to Crypto News. The Ethereum Foundation plans to use the review findings in the upgrade's final design, bloomingbit reported. A private test was tentatively discussed for November 16 to 20 at the earliest, according to Crypto News, while Analytics Insight reported that developers had not announced a replacement Hoodi activation date or a confirmed mainnet launch.

Frequently Asked Questions

How could Glamsterdam change gas-fee billing for Ethereum dApps?

According to bloomingbit, EIP-8037 and EIP-8038 would change the cost structure for storing and accessing data. Some dApps could consequently bill users an amount that differs from the gas fees they actually pay. A service processing transactions for users could charge either less or more than its fee expense, the outlet reported.

What do Leo Glisic and Giulio Rebuffo propose for Glamsterdam?

Glisic proposes retaining existing gas rules for older contracts and introducing separate instructions for new contracts, according to Crypto News. Rebuffo proposes two accounting systems per transaction, one to measure execution under previous rules and another to calculate the fee under revised pricing. Crypto News reported that neither plan has been approved for Glamsterdam.

Could Glamsterdam put Ethereum wallets at risk?

bloomingbit reported that CryptoSlate had flagged the possibility of wallet takeover if approval data is reused following a failed transaction. The outlet also said the Ethereum Foundation had asked developers to review the effects of the gas-calculation changes on existing applications and intends to use the findings in its final upgrade design.

When is the next Glamsterdam test after the October 26 Hoodi delay?

At an October 29 meeting, developers tentatively discussed a private Glamsterdam test for November 16 to 20 at the earliest, Crypto News reported. That schedule preceded the two competing proposals, according to the publication. Analytics Insight reported that developers had not announced a replacement Hoodi activation date or a confirmed mainnet launch.