Abstract

This EIP adds a new transaction type that allows EOAs to execute arbitrary code using a delegate-call-like mechanism.

Motivation

EOA are the most widely used of account, yet their ability to perform operation is limited to deploying contracts and sending call transaction. It is currently not possible for an EOA to execute arbitrary code, which greatly limits the interractions users can have with he blockchain. Account abstraction has been extensively discussed but the path toward mainstream adoption is still unclear. Some approaches, such as ERC-4337 hope to improve the usability of smart wallets, without addressing the issue of smart wallet support by applications. EIP-3074 proposes another approach that favors existing EOAs but comes with replay risks.

While smart contract wallets have a lot to offer in terms of UX, it is unlikelly that all users will migrate any time soon because of the associated cost and the fact that some EOA have custody of non-transferable assets.

This EIP proposes an approach to allow EOA executing abritrary code, with minimal change over the EVM, and using the same security model users are used to. By allowing EOAs to perform delegate calls to a contract (similarly to how contracts can delegate calls to other contracts using EIP-7), EOAs will be able to have more control over what operations they want to execute. This proposal goal is NOT to provide an account abstraction primitive, though it would enable some usescases that fall in the scope of account abstraction.

Performing a delegate call to a multicall contract (such as the one deployed to 0xcA11bde05977b3631167028862bE2a173976CA11), EOAs would be able to batch multiple transactions into a single one, while being the msg.sender of all the sub calls. Other unforeseen logic could be implemented in smart contracts and used by EOA. This includes deploying contracts using create2, emitting events or using storage under the EOA's account.

This EIP doesn't aim to replace other account abstraction proposals. It hopes to be an easy-to-implement alternative that would significantly improve the user experience of EOA owners in the near future.

Specification

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

Parameters

• FORK_BLKNUM = TBD
• TX_TYPE = TBD, > 0x03 (EIP-4844)

As of FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER, a new EIP-2718 transaction is introduced with TransactionType = TX_TYPE(TBD).

The intrinsic cost of the new transaction is inherited from EIP-2930, specifically 21000 + 16 * non-zero calldata bytes + 4 * zero calldata bytes + 1900 * access list storage key count + 2400 * access list address count.

The EIP-2718 TransactionPayload for this transaction is

rlp([chain_id, nonce, max_priority_fee_per_gas, max_fee_per_gas, gas_limit, destination, data, access_list, signature_y_parity, signature_r, signature_s])

The definitions of all fields share the same meaning with EIP-1559. Note the absence of amount field in this transaction!

The signature_y_parity, signature_r, signature_s elements of this transaction represent a secp256k1 signature over keccak256(0x02 || rlp([chain_id, nonce, max_priority_fee_per_gas, max_fee_per_gas, gas_limit, destination, data, access_list])).

The EIP-2718 ReceiptPayload for this transaction is rlp([status, cumulative_transaction_gas_used, logs_bloom, logs]).

The execution of this new transaction type is equivalent to the delegate call mechanism introduced in EIP-7, but performed by an EOA (the transaction sender). This implies that the code present at destination, if any, should be executed in the context of the sender. As a consequence, such a transaction can set and read storage under the EOA. It can also emit an event from the EOA.

Rationale

EOAs are the most widely used type of wallet.

This EIP would drastically expand the ability of EOAs to interact with smart contracts by using the pre-existing and well-understood delegation mechanism introduced in EIP-7 and without adding new complexity to the EVM.

Backwards Compatibility

No known backward compatibility issues thanks to the transaction envelope (EIP-2718).

Due to the inclusion logic and the gas cost being similar to type 2 transactions, it should be possible to include this new transaction type in the same mempool.

Security Considerations

The nonce mechanism, already used in other transaction types, prevents replay attacks. This makes this approach safer, but also less powerful than EIP-3074.

Contracts being called through this mechanism can execute any operation on behalf of the signer. Signers should be extremely careful signing this transaction (just like any other transaction).

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.