Ethereum draft outlines shared proofs with separate payments

Under the proposed arrangement, a sponsor would pay for each retained batch leaf, while member transactions would cover their own submitted claims. Builders could include any valid subset of a batch without asking included members to sign again just because other transactions were left out. Individual transaction nonces and receipts would remain separate.

The draft would activate the LEANSTARK_SCHEME reserved in EIP-8288 and add generic proof verification, proof identity, resource limits, dependency summaries and batch-payment rules. Payment matching would be checked during finalization, with recursive proofs authenticating the sources used in a batch. Ordinary proofs covering a single statement would remain eligible for the public mempool; discounted claims and sponsor payments would go directly to block builders.

EIP-8288, authored by Vitalik Buterin and Thomas Coratger, proposes aggregating cryptographic signatures and proofs outside Ethereum’s main execution process. Marchhill’s draft would allow the reserved leanSTARK scheme to be used in dependency frames and replace a bare data-hash statement with a stable digest representing a list of claims. The submission supersedes pull request #12654, but still needs an EIP number and a dedicated discussion thread.

The revision lists provisional charges of 15,400 gas for native verification and 572,000 gas for ordinary generic verification. Other proposed charges are 5,100 gas for the intrinsic proof share, 675,000 gas for a leaf payment and 4,200 gas for a batch claim. The draft says the figures require joint calibration and do not establish a final fee schedule or confirmed user savings. It also proposes a limit of 16,384 distinct dependencies per block, up to 256 claims in a leaf and 16 inputs per proof step; neither of the latter figures is a block-wide limit.

Activation would depend on full-block performance measurements, including the complete processing schedule, late sponsor repair and per-proof charges that fit within transaction gas limits with required overhead. The draft distinguishes measured individual-node and single-machine results from modeled 16-worker figures. It says invalidated sponsorship could waste a builder’s work, with inclusion gas not reimbursing that effort. Concrete commitment construction and encodings remain in the pinned proof-system specification, and the proposal adds no networking messages.