ERC-4337 - Account Abstraction Using Alt Mempool

Created 2021-09-29
Status Draft
Category ERC
Type Standards Track
Authors
Requires

Abstract

An account abstraction proposal which completely avoids the need for consensus-layer protocol changes. Instead of adding new protocol features and changing the bottom-layer transaction type, this proposal instead introduces a higher-layer pseudo-transaction object called a UserOperation. Users send UserOperation objects into a separate mempool. A special class of actor called bundlers package up a set of these objects into a transaction making a handleOps call to a special contract, and that transaction then gets included in a block.

Motivation

See also https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/implementing-account-abstraction-as-part-of-eth1-x/4020 and the links therein for historical work and motivation, and EIP-2938 for a consensus layer proposal for implementing the same goal.

This proposal takes a different approach, avoiding any adjustments to the consensus layer. It seeks to achieve the following goals:

Specification

Definitions

UserOperation

To avoid Ethereum consensus changes, we do not attempt to create new transaction types for account-abstracted transactions. Instead, users package up the action they want their account to take in a struct named UserOperation:

Field Type Description
sender address The account making the operation
nonce uint256 Anti-replay parameter (see "Semi-abstracted Nonce Support" )
factory address account factory, only for new accounts
factoryData bytes data for account factory (only if account factory exists)
callData bytes The data to pass to the sender during the main execution call
callGasLimit uint256 The amount of gas to allocate the main execution call
verificationGasLimit uint256 The amount of gas to allocate for the verification step
preVerificationGas uint256 Extra gas to pay the bunder
maxFeePerGas uint256 Maximum fee per gas (similar to EIP-1559 max_fee_per_gas)
maxPriorityFeePerGas uint256 Maximum priority fee per gas (similar to EIP-1559 max_priority_fee_per_gas)
paymaster address Address of paymaster contract, (or empty, if account pays for itself)
paymasterVerificationGasLimit uint256 The amount of gas to allocate for the paymaster validation code
paymasterPostOpGasLimit uint256 The amount of gas to allocate for the paymaster post-operation code
paymasterData bytes Data for paymaster (only if paymaster exists)
signature bytes Data passed into the account to verify authorization

Users send UserOperation objects to a dedicated user operation mempool. They are not concerned with the packed version. A specialized class of actors called bundlers (either block builders running special-purpose code, or users that can relay transactions to block builders eg. through a bundle marketplace such as Flashbots that can guarantee next-block-or-never inclusion) listen in on the user operation mempool, and create bundle transactions. A bundle transaction packages up multiple UserOperation objects into a single handleOps call to a pre-published global entry point contract.

To prevent replay attacks (both cross-chain and multiple EntryPoint implementations), the signature should depend on chainid and the EntryPoint address.

EntryPoint definition

When passed to on-chain contacts (the EntryPoint contract, and then to the account and paymaster), a packed version of the above structure is used:

Field Type Description
sender address
nonce uint256
initCode bytes concatenation of factory address and factoryData (or empty)
callData bytes
accountGasLimits bytes32 concatenation of verificationGas (16 bytes) and callGas (16 bytes)
preVerificationGas uint256
gasFees bytes32 concatenation of maxPriorityFee (16 bytes) and maxFeePerGas (16 bytes)
paymasterAndData bytes concatenation of paymaster fields (or empty)
signature bytes

The core interface of the entry point contract is as follows:

function handleOps(PackedUserOperation[] calldata ops, address payable beneficiary);

Account Contract Interface

The core interface required for an account to have is:

interface IAccount {
  function validateUserOp
      (PackedUserOperation calldata userOp, bytes32 userOpHash, uint256 missingAccountFunds)
      external returns (uint256 validationData);
}

The userOpHash is a hash over the userOp (except signature), entryPoint and chainId.

The account:

The account MAY implement the interface IAccountExecute

interface IAccountExecute {
  function executeUserOp(PackedUserOperation calldata userOp, bytes32 userOpHash) external;
}

This method will be called by the entryPoint with the current UserOperation, instead of executing the callData itself on the account.

Semi-abstracted Nonce Support

In Ethereum protocol, the sequential transaction nonce value is used as a replay protection method as well as to determine the valid order of transaction being included in blocks.

It also contributes to the transaction hash uniqueness, as a transaction by the same sender with the same nonce may not be included in the chain twice.

However, requiring a single sequential nonce value is limiting the senders' ability to define their custom logic with regard to transaction ordering and replay protection.

Instead of sequential nonce we implement a nonce mechanism that uses a single uint256 nonce value in the UserOperation, but treats it as two values:

These values are represented on-chain in the EntryPoint contract. We define the following method in the EntryPoint interface to expose these values:

function getNonce(address sender, uint192 key) external view returns (uint256 nonce);

For each key the sequence is validated and incremented sequentially and monotonically by the EntryPoint for each UserOperation, however a new key can be introduced with an arbitrary value at any point.

This approach maintains the guarantee of UserOperation hash uniqueness on-chain on the protocol level while allowing wallets to implement any custom logic they may need operating on a 192-bit "key" field, while fitting the 32 byte word.

Reading and validating the nonce

When preparing the UserOp clients may make a view call to this method to determine a valid value for the nonce field.

Bundler's validation of a UserOp should start with getNonce to ensure the transaction has a valid nonce field.

If the bundler is willing to accept multiple UserOperations by the same sender into their mempool, this bundler is supposed to track the key and sequence pair of the UserOperations already added in the mempool.

Usage examples

  1. Classic sequential nonce.

In order to require the wallet to have classic, sequential nonce, the validation function should perform:

solidity require(userOp.nonce<type(uint64).max)

  1. Ordered administrative events

In some cases, an account may need to have an "administrative" channel of operations running in parallel to normal operations.

In this case, the account may use a specific key when calling methods on the account itself:

solidity bytes4 sig = bytes4(userOp.callData[0 : 4]); uint key = userOp.nonce >> 64; if (sig == ADMIN_METHODSIG) { require(key == ADMIN_KEY, "wrong nonce-key for admin operation"); } else { require(key == 0, "wrong nonce-key for normal operation"); }

Required entry point contract functionality

The entry point method is handleOps, which handles an array of userOps

The entry point's handleOps function must perform the following steps (we first describe the simpler non-paymaster case). It must make two loops, the verification loop and the execution loop. In the verification loop, the handleOps call must perform the following steps for each UserOperation:

In the execution loop, the handleOps call must perform the following steps for each UserOperation:

Before accepting a UserOperation, bundlers should use an RPC method to locally call the simulateValidation function on the entry point, to verify that the signature is correct and the operation actually pays fees; see the Simulation section below for details. A node/bundler SHOULD drop (not add to the mempool) a UserOperation that fails the validation

Extension: paymasters

We extend the entry point logic to support paymasters that can sponsor transactions for other users. This feature can be used to allow application developers to subsidize fees for their users, allow users to pay fees with [ERC-20] tokens and many other use cases. When the paymasterAndData field in the UserOp is not empty, the entry point implements a different flow for that UserOperation:

During the verification loop, in addition to calling validateUserOp, the handleOps execution also must check that the paymaster has enough ETH deposited with the entry point to pay for the operation, and then call validatePaymasterUserOp on the paymaster to verify that the paymaster is willing to pay for the operation. Note that in this case, the validateUserOp is called with a missingAccountFunds of 0 to reflect that the account's deposit is not used for payment for this userOp.

If the paymaster's validatePaymasterUserOp returns a "context", then handleOps must call postOp on the paymaster after making the main execution call.

Maliciously crafted paymasters can DoS the system. To prevent this, we use a reputation system. paymaster must either limit its storage usage, or have a stake. see the reputation, throttling and banning section for details.

The paymaster interface is as follows:

function validatePaymasterUserOp
    (PackedUserOperation calldata userOp, bytes32 userOpHash, uint256 maxCost)
    external returns (bytes memory context, uint256 validationData);

function postOp
    (PostOpMode mode, bytes calldata context, uint256 actualGasCost, uint256 actualUserOpFeePerGas)
    external;

enum PostOpMode {
    opSucceeded, // user op succeeded
    opReverted, // user op reverted. still has to pay for gas.
    postOpReverted // Regardless of the UserOp call status, the postOp reverted, and caused both executions to revert.
}

The EntryPoint must implement the following API to let entities like paymasters have a stake, and thus have more flexibility in their storage access (see reputation, throttling and banning section for details.)

// add a stake to the calling entity
function addStake(uint32 _unstakeDelaySec) external payable

// unlock the stake (must wait unstakeDelay before can withdraw)
function unlockStake() external

// withdraw the unlocked stake
function withdrawStake(address payable withdrawAddress) external

The paymaster must also have a deposit, which the entry point will charge UserOperation costs from. The deposit (for paying gas fees) is separate from the stake (which is locked).

The EntryPoint must implement the following interface to allow paymasters (and optionally accounts) to manage their deposit:

// return the deposit of an account
function balanceOf(address account) public view returns (uint256)

// add to the deposit of the given account
function depositTo(address account) public payable

// withdraw from the deposit of the current account
function withdrawTo(address payable withdrawAddress, uint256 withdrawAmount) external

Client behavior upon receiving a UserOperation

When a client receives a UserOperation, it must first run some basic sanity checks, namely that:

If the UserOperation object passes these sanity checks, the client must next run the first op simulation, and if the simulation succeeds, the client must add the op to the pool. A second simulation must also happen during bundling to make sure the UserOperation is still valid.

Simulation

Simulation Rationale

To add a UserOperation into the mempool (and later to add it into a bundle) we need to "simulate" its validation to make sure it is valid, and that it pays for its own execution. In addition, we need to verify that the same will hold true when executed on-chain. For this purpose, a UserOperation is not allowed to access any information that might change between simulation and execution, such as current block time, number, hash etc. In addition, a UserOperation is only allowed to access data related to this sender address: Multiple UserOperations should not access the same storage, so it is impossible to invalidate a large number of UserOperations with a single state change. There are 2 special entity contracts that interact with the account: the factory (initCode) that deploys the contract, and the paymaster that can pay for the gas. Each of these contracts is also restricted in its storage access, to make sure UserOperation validations are isolated.

Simulation Specification:

To simulate a UserOperation validation, the client makes a view call to simulateValidation(userop).

The EntryPoint itself does not implement the simulation methods. Instead, when making the simulation view call, The bundler should provide the alternate EntryPointSimulations code, which extends the EntryPoint with the simulation methods.

The simulation core methods:

struct ValidationResult {
    ReturnInfo returnInfo;
    StakeInfo senderInfo;
    StakeInfo factoryInfo;
    StakeInfo paymasterInfo;
    AggregatorStakeInfo aggregatorInfo;
}

function simulateValidation(PackedUserOperation calldata userOp)
external returns (ValidationResult memory);

struct ReturnInfo {
    uint256 preOpGas;
    uint256 prefund;
    uint256 accountValidationData;
    uint256 paymasterValidationData;
    bytes paymasterContext;
}

struct StakeInfo {
  uint256 stake;
  uint256 unstakeDelaySec;
}

The AggregatorStakeInfo structure is further defined in ERC-7766.

This method returns ValidationResult or revert on validation failure. The node should drop the UserOperation if the simulation fails (either by revert or by "signature failure")

The simulated call performs the full validation, by calling:

  1. If initCode is present, create the account.
  2. account.validateUserOp.
  3. if specified a paymaster: paymaster.validatePaymasterUserOp.

The simulateValidation should validate the return value (validationData) returned by the account's validateUserOp and paymaster's validatePaymasterUserOp. The paymaster MUST return either "0" (success) or SIG_VALIDATION_FAILED. Either return value may contain a "validAfter" and "validUntil" timestamps, which is the time-range that this UserOperation is valid on-chain. A node MAY drop a UserOperation if it expires too soon (e.g. wouldn't make it to the next block) by either the account or paymaster. If the ValidationResult includes sigFail, the client SHOULD drop the UserOperation.

To prevent DoS attacks on bundlers, they must make sure the validation methods above pass the validation rules, which constrain their usage of opcodes and storage. For the complete procedure see ERC-7562

Alternative Mempools

The simulation rules above are strict and prevent the ability of paymasters to grief the system. However, there might be use cases where specific paymasters can be validated (through manual auditing) and verified that they cannot cause any problem, while still require relaxing of the opcode rules. A bundler cannot simply "whitelist" a request from a specific paymaster: if that paymaster is not accepted by all bundlers, then its support will be sporadic at best. Instead, we introduce the term "alternate mempool": a modified validation rules, and procedure of propagating them to other bundlers.

The procedure of using alternate mempools is defined in ERC-7562

Bundling

Bundling is the process where a node/bundler collects multiple UserOperations and creates a single transaction to submit on-chain.

During bundling, the bundler should:

After creating the batch, before including the transaction in a block, the bundler should:

As staked entries may use some kind of transient storage to communicate data between UserOperations in the same bundle, it is critical that the exact same opcode and precompile banning rules as well as storage access rules are enforced for the handleOps validation in its entirety as for individual UserOperations. Otherwise, attackers may be able to use the banned opcodes to detect running on-chain and trigger a FailedOp revert.

When a bundler includes a bundle in a block it must ensure that earlier transactions in the block don't make any UserOperation fail. It should either use access lists to prevent conflicts, or place the bundle as the first transaction in the block.

Error codes.

While performing validation, the EntryPoint must revert on failures. During simulation, the calling bundler MUST be able to determine which entity (factory, account or paymaster) caused the failure. The attribution of a revert to an entity is done using call-tracing: the last entity called by the EntryPoint prior to the revert is the entity that caused the revert. * For diagnostic purposes, the EntryPoint must only revert with explicit FailedOp() or FailedOpWithRevert() errors. * The message of the error starts with event code, AA## * Event code starting with "AA1" signifies an error during account creation * Event code starting with "AA2" signifies an error during account validation (validateUserOp) * Event code starting with "AA3" signifies an error during paymaster validation (validatePaymasterUserOp)

Rationale

The main challenge with a purely smart contract wallet-based account abstraction system is DoS safety: how can a block builder including an operation make sure that it will actually pay fees, without having to first execute the entire operation? Requiring the block builder to execute the entire operation opens a DoS attack vector, as an attacker could easily send many operations that pretend to pay a fee but then revert at the last moment after a long execution. Similarly, to prevent attackers from cheaply clogging the mempool, nodes in the P2P network need to check if an operation will pay a fee before they are willing to forward it.

The first step is a clean separation between validation (acceptance of UserOperation, and acceptance to pay) and execution. In this proposal, we expect accounts to have a validateUserOp method that takes as input a UserOperation, verifies the signature and pays the fee. Only if this method returns successfully, the execution will happen.

The entry point-based approach allows for a clean separation between verification and execution, and keeps accounts' logic simple. It enforces the simple rule that only after validation is successful (and the UserOp can pay), the execution is done, and also guarantees the fee payment.

Validation Rules Rationale

The next step is protecting the bundlers from denial-of-service attacks by a mass number of UserOperations that appear to be valid (and pay) but that eventually revert, and thus block the bundler from processing valid UserOperations.

There are two types of UserOperations that can fail validation: 1. UserOperations that succeed in initial validation (and accepted into the mempool), but rely on the environment state to fail later when attempting to include them in a block. 2. UserOperations that are valid when checked independently, by fail when bundled together to be put on-chain. To prevent such rogue UserOperations, the bundler is required to follow a set of restrictions on the validation function, to prevent such denial-of-service attacks.

Reputation Rationale.

UserOperation's storage access rules prevent them from interfering with each other. But "global" entities - paymasters and factories are accessed by multiple UserOperations, and thus might invalidate multiple previously valid UserOperations.

To prevent abuse, we throttle down (or completely ban for a period of time) an entity that causes invalidation of a large number of UserOperations in the mempool. To prevent such entities from "Sybil-attack", we require them to stake with the system, and thus make such DoS attack very expensive. Note that this stake is never slashed, and can be withdrawn at any time (after unstake delay)

Unstaked entities are allowed, under the rules below.

When staked, an entity is less restricted in its memory usage.

The stake value is not enforced on-chain, but specifically by each node while simulating a transaction.

Reputation scoring and throttling/banning for global entities

[ERC-7562] defines a set of rules a bundler must follow when accepting UserOperations into the mempool. It also descrbies the "reputation"

Paymasters

Paymaster contracts allow the abstraction of gas: having a contract, that is not the sender of the transaction, to pay for the transaction fees.

Paymaster architecture allows them to follow the model of "pre-charge, and later refund". E.g. a token-paymaster may pre-charge the user with the max possible price of the transaction, and refund the user with the excess afterwards.

First-time account creation

It is an important design goal of this proposal to replicate the key property of EOAs that users do not need to perform some custom action or rely on an existing user to create their wallet; they can simply generate an address locally and immediately start accepting funds.

The wallet creation itself is done by a "factory" contract, with wallet-specific data. The factory is expected to use CREATE2 (not CREATE) to create the wallet, so that the order of creation of wallets doesn't interfere with the generated addresses. The initCode field (if non-zero length) is parsed as a 20-byte address, followed by "calldata" to pass to this address. This method call is expected to create a wallet and return its address. If the factory does use CREATE2 or some other deterministic method to create the wallet, it's expected to return the wallet address even if the wallet has already been created. This comes to make it easier for clients to query the address without knowing if the wallet has already been deployed, by simulating a call to entryPoint.getSenderAddress(), which calls the factory under the hood. When initCode is specified, if either the sender address points to an existing contract, or (after calling the initCode) the sender address still does not exist, then the operation is aborted. The initCode MUST NOT be called directly from the entryPoint, but from another address. The contract created by this factory method should accept a call to validateUserOp to validate the UserOp's signature. For security reasons, it is important that the generated contract address will depend on the initial signature. This way, even if someone can create a wallet at that address, he can't set different credentials to control it. The factory has to be staked if it accesses global storage - see reputation, throttling and banning section for details.

NOTE: In order for the wallet to determine the "counterfactual" address of the wallet (prior to its creation), it should make a static call to the entryPoint.getSenderAddress()

Entry point upgrading

Accounts are encouraged to be DELEGATECALL forwarding contracts for gas efficiency and to allow account upgradability. The account code is expected to hard-code the entry point into their code for gas efficiency. If a new entry point is introduced, whether to add new functionality, improve gas efficiency, or fix a critical security bug, users can self-call to replace their account's code address with a new code address containing code that points to a new entry point. During an upgrade process, it's expected that two mempools will run in parallel.

RPC methods (eth namespace)

* eth_sendUserOperation

eth_sendUserOperation submits a User Operation object to the User Operation pool of the client. The client MUST validate the UserOperation, and return a result accordingly.

The result SHOULD be set to the userOpHash if and only if the request passed simulation and was accepted in the client's User Operation pool. If the validation, simulation, or User Operation pool inclusion fails, result SHOULD NOT be returned. Rather, the client SHOULD return the failure reason.

Parameters:
  1. UserOperation a full user-operation struct. All fields MUST be set as hex values. empty bytes block (e.g. empty initCode) MUST be set to "0x"
  2. factory and factoryData - either both exist, or none
  3. paymaster fields (paymaster, paymasterData, paymasterValidationGasLimit, paymasterPostOpGasLimit) either all exist, or none.
  4. EntryPoint the entrypoint address the request should be sent through. this MUST be one of the entry points returned by the supportedEntryPoints rpc call.
Return value:
Example:

Request:

```json= { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "eth_sendUserOperation", "params": [ { sender, // address nonce, // uint256 factory, // address factoryData, // bytes callData, // bytes callGasLimit, // uint256 verificationGasLimit, // uint256 preVerificationGas, // uint256 maxFeePerGas, // uint256 maxPriorityFeePerGas, // uint256 paymaster, // address paymasterVerificationGasLimit, // uint256 paymasterPostOpGasLimit, // uint256 paymasterData, // bytes signature // bytes }, entryPoint // address ] }

Response:

{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "result": "0x1234...5678" }

##### Example failure responses:

```json
{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "error": {
    "message": "AA21 didn't pay prefund",
    "code": -32500
  }
}
{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "error": {
    "message": "paymaster stake too low",
    "data": {
      "paymaster": "0x123456789012345678901234567890123456790",
      "minimumStake": "0xde0b6b3a7640000",
      "minimumUnstakeDelay": "0x15180"
    },
    "code": -32504
  }
}

* eth_estimateUserOperationGas

Estimate the gas values for a UserOperation. Given UserOperation optionally without gas limits and gas prices, return the needed gas limits. The signature field is ignored by the wallet, so that the operation will not require the user's approval. Still, it might require putting a "semi-valid" signature (e.g. a signature in the right length)

Parameters: * Same as eth_sendUserOperation\ gas limits (and prices) parameters are optional, but are used if specified. maxFeePerGas and maxPriorityFeePerGas default to zero, so no payment is required by neither account nor paymaster. * Optionally accepts the State Override Set to allow users to modify the state during the gas estimation.\ This field as well as its behavior is equivalent to the ones defined for eth_call RPC method.

Return Values:

Note: actual postOpGasLimit cannot be reliably estimated. Paymasters should provide this value to account, and require that specific value on-chain.

Error Codes:

Same as eth_sendUserOperation This operation may also return an error if either the inner call to the account contract reverts, or paymaster's postOp call reverts.

* eth_getUserOperationByHash

Return a UserOperation based on a hash (userOpHash) returned by eth_sendUserOperation

Parameters

Return value:

* eth_getUserOperationReceipt

Return a UserOperation receipt based on a hash (userOpHash) returned by eth_sendUserOperation

Parameters

Return value:

null in case the UserOperation is not yet included in a block, or:

* eth_supportedEntryPoints

Returns an array of the entryPoint addresses supported by the client. The first element of the array SHOULD be the entryPoint addressed preferred by the client.

```json=

Request

{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "eth_supportedEntryPoints", "params": [] }

Response

{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "result": [ "0xcd01C8aa8995A59eB7B2627E69b40e0524B5ecf8", "0x7A0A0d159218E6a2f407B99173A2b12A6DDfC2a6" ] }

#### * eth_chainId

Returns [EIP-155](/eips/eip-155.html) Chain ID.

```json=
# Request
{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "method": "eth_chainId",
  "params": []
}

# Response
{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "result": "0x1"
}

RPC methods (debug Namespace)

This api must only be available in testing mode and is required by the compatibility test suite. In production, any debug_* rpc calls should be blocked.

* debug_bundler_clearState

Clears the bundler mempool and reputation data of paymasters/accounts/factories.

```json=

Request

{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "debug_bundler_clearState", "params": [] }

Response

{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "result": "ok" }

#### * debug_bundler_dumpMempool

Dumps the current UserOperations mempool

**Parameters:**

* **EntryPoint** the entrypoint used by eth_sendUserOperation

**Returns:**

`array` - Array of UserOperations currently in the mempool.

```json=
# Request
{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "method": "debug_bundler_dumpMempool",
  "params": ["0x1306b01bC3e4AD202612D3843387e94737673F53"]
}

# Response
{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "result": [
    {
        sender, // address
        nonce, // uint256
        factory, // address
        factoryData, // bytes
        callData, // bytes
        callGasLimit, // uint256
        verificationGasLimit, // uint256
        preVerificationGas, // uint256
        maxFeePerGas, // uint256
        maxPriorityFeePerGas, // uint256
        signature // bytes
    }
  ]
}

* debug_bundler_sendBundleNow

Forces the bundler to build and execute a bundle from the mempool as handleOps() transaction.

Returns: transactionHash

```json=

Request

{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "debug_bundler_sendBundleNow", "params": [] }

Response

{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "result": "0xdead9e43632ac70c46b4003434058b18db0ad809617bd29f3448d46ca9085576" }

#### * debug_bundler_setBundlingMode

Sets bundling mode.

After setting mode to "manual", an explicit call to debug_bundler_sendBundleNow is required to send a bundle.

##### parameters:

`mode` - 'manual' | 'auto'

```json=
# Request
{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "method": "debug_bundler_setBundlingMode",
  "params": ["manual"]
}

# Response
{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "result": "ok"
}

* debug_bundler_setReputation

Sets the reputation of given addresses. parameters:

Parameters:

```json=

Request

{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "debug_bundler_setReputation", "params": [ [ { "address": "0x7A0A0d159218E6a2f407B99173A2b12A6DDfC2a6", "opsSeen": "0x14", "opsIncluded": "0x0D" } ], "0x1306b01bC3e4AD202612D3843387e94737673F53" ] }

Response

{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "result": "ok" }

#### * debug_bundler_dumpReputation

Returns the reputation data of all observed addresses.
Returns an array of reputation objects, each with the fields described above in `debug_bundler_setReputation` with the


**Parameters:**

* **EntryPoint** the entrypoint used by eth_sendUserOperation

**Return value:**

An array of reputation entries with the fields:

* `address` - The address to set the reputation for.
* `opsSeen` - number of times a user operations with that entity was seen and added to the mempool
* `opsIncluded` - number of times user operation that use this entity was included on-chain
* `status` - (string) The status of the address in the bundler 'ok' | 'throttled' | 'banned'.

```json=
# Request
{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "method": "debug_bundler_dumpReputation",
  "params": ["0x1306b01bC3e4AD202612D3843387e94737673F53"]
}

# Response
{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": 1,
  "result": [
    { "address": "0x7A0A0d159218E6a2f407B99173A2b12A6DDfC2a6",
      "opsSeen": "0x14",
      "opsIncluded": "0x13",
      "status": "ok"
    }
  ]
}

* debug_bundler_addUserOps

Accept UserOperations into the mempool. Assume the given UserOperations all pass validation (without actually validating them), and accept them directly into the mempool

Parameters:

```json=

Request

{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "debug_bundler_addUserOps", "params": [ [ { sender: "0xa...", ... }, { sender: "0xb...", ... } ] ] }

Response

{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "result": "ok" } ```

Backwards Compatibility

This ERC does not change the consensus layer, so there are no backwards compatibility issues for Ethereum as a whole. Unfortunately it is not easily compatible with pre-ERC-4337 accounts, because those accounts do not have a validateUserOp function. If the account has a function for authorizing a trusted op submitter, then this could be fixed by creating an ERC-4337 compatible account that re-implements the verification logic as a wrapper and setting it to be the original account's trusted op submitter.

Reference Implementation

See https://github.com/eth-infinitism/account-abstraction/tree/main/contracts

Security Considerations

The entry point contract will need to be very heavily audited and formally verified, because it will serve as a central trust point for all [ERC-4337]. In total, this architecture reduces auditing and formal verification load for the ecosystem, because the amount of work that individual accounts have to do becomes much smaller (they need only verify the validateUserOp function and its "check signature and pay fees" logic) and check that other functions are msg.sender == ENTRY_POINT gated (perhaps also allowing msg.sender == self), but it is nevertheless the case that this is done precisely by concentrating security risk in the entry point contract that needs to be verified to be very robust.

Verification would need to cover two primary claims (not including claims needed to protect paymasters, and claims needed to establish p2p-level DoS resistance):

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.