aamirpashaa
commented
7 months ago We are facing some differences in the account table (which holds the addresses, their nonces and balances, and codes) between the reth and Telos EVM contracts. Some of the differences are expected, like address creation using openwallet and create action in the EVM contract which inserts a new row inside the account table, but they are not added to reth until they are involved in a transaction. but we don't expect a difference for addresses that have non-zero balances:
And it can have 2 reasons: 1) We haven't correctly implemented our 2 state-effective bugs inside revm 2) There are other bugs that we are not aware of
And I'm investigating the reason now
Describe the feature
There are two state-effective bugs that we have found until now on the Telos EVM contract:
To support historical calls, we should modify the revm to behave exactly like the problematic version of the Telos EVM contract when calling against historical blocks. The revm functionality will be normal for post-upgrade blocks and this will be determined by checking the revision number changes passed to the reth through Engine API functions.
Additional context
No response