Skip to content

Update EIP-7708: Clarify transaction transfer to different account#11188

Merged
eth-bot merged 1 commit intoethereum:masterfrom
rakita:eip-7708-self-transfer-clarification
Jan 28, 2026
Merged

Update EIP-7708: Clarify transaction transfer to different account#11188
eth-bot merged 1 commit intoethereum:masterfrom
rakita:eip-7708-self-transfer-clarification

Conversation

@rakita
Copy link
Contributor

@rakita rakita commented Jan 27, 2026

Summary

Clarifies that a transfer log is only emitted for transactions when transferring to a different account.

This aligns with the existing behavior for CALL and SELFDESTRUCT which already specify "to a different account".

Adds "to a different account" for transactions to match the existing
CALL and SELFDESTRUCT behavior, making it explicit that self-transfers
do not emit a transfer log.
@rakita rakita requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner January 27, 2026 23:28
@github-actions github-actions bot added c-update Modifies an existing proposal s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-core labels Jan 27, 2026
@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented Jan 27, 2026

✅ All reviewers have approved.

@eth-bot eth-bot added the a-review Waiting on author to review label Jan 27, 2026
@fselmo
Copy link
Contributor

fselmo commented Jan 27, 2026

Yes if we changed CALL then we should change this here as well. I'm not convinced this was under-specced but this is meant as an update / change to the EIP, is this correct?

Before, the reason SELFDESTRUCT stated to a different account seemed to be that if it was to self then it emits a selfdestruct log. And CALL emits transfer no matter who it's going to.

Now we are introducing conditionals and I just want to make sure this doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity and / or unexpected results but I think we're OK? Are there any legitimate cases where a non-zero self transfer would warrant a log / subscriber to such an event?

Copy link
Contributor

@fselmo fselmo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is the way. I can't really think of any case, even with some 7702 delegation, where this would be warranted to emit a log. I was just thinking out loud here 👍🏼

Copy link

@Carsons-Eels Carsons-Eels left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@eth-bot eth-bot enabled auto-merge (squash) January 28, 2026 03:38
Copy link
Collaborator

@eth-bot eth-bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...

@eth-bot eth-bot merged commit 6c49407 into ethereum:master Jan 28, 2026
11 checks passed
@rakita rakita deleted the eip-7708-self-transfer-clarification branch January 28, 2026 04:13
@etan-status
Copy link
Contributor

Before, the reason SELFDESTRUCT stated to a different account seemed to be that if it was to self then it emits a selfdestruct log. And CALL emits transfer no matter who it's going to.

Here, the reason was that SELFDESTRUCT immediately burns the ETH in case of a "self-transfer".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

a-review Waiting on author to review c-update Modifies an existing proposal s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-core

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants