Ethereum EIPs refine execution artifacts and L2 burn paths

The answer runs through a predeploy. Withdrawn ETH accumulates in the OP Stack’sL2ToL1MessagePasser contract at0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000016. That predeploy exposes a permissionlessburn() function, which zeroes the balance by deploying a contract whose constructor runsSELFDESTRUCT with itself as beneficiary — the mechanism keeping L2 ETH supply from inflating, per the GitHub EIP-8246 update.

This needs its own documentation because some L2 chains callSELFDESTRUCT‘s burn feature regularly, unlike Mainnet, so they can’t share a migration path with it. Chains built on the OP Stack codebase inherit the predeploy dependency unless they’ve modified it.

The Sept. 4 commits then deal with what’s left over. OP Stack contracts that go throughburn() are deployed viaCREATE, producing balance-only accounts that can’t be recreated throughCREATE2, according to the EIP-8246 update. The follow-up EIP commit works out the opposite scenario: if the balance is preserved rather than destroyed, the account survives with its nonce, code, and storage cleared — which makes the address a validCREATE2 target again.

The technical implication for L2 operators, based on the commit language, is that aCREATE2 deployment is determined by the(sender, salt, initcode) tuple, and whensender is a permissionless factory, anyone can redeploy to that address and potentially claim whatever balance was left behind. The supplied updates do not quantify how many chains are affected, what balances may be preserved, or whether any losses have occurred. The migration problem isn’t just cleared contract state. It’s funded remnants that become accessible once aCREATE2 path opens up.

The earlier EIP-8246 baseline still applies everywhere else. Contracts not created in the same transaction whereSELFDESTRUCT executes haven’t changed behavior since EIP-6780. A non-zero balance alone doesn’t trigger a creation collision under EIP-684, the update notes. Those references keep theCREATE2 addition scoped to a specific state-and-address interaction for a specific deployment pattern, not something that touches every self-destructing contract.

The other document active on Sept. 4 is ERC-8410, the “Portable Execution Plan Artifact.” Its Ethereum Magicians discussion describes a JSON structure carrying an ordered call sequence for a single sender on a single chain, built to move from software that holds no keys to the wallet that does — with akeccak256 digest over exactly the fields that determine what gets broadcast. What the fact sheet doesn’t pin down is any specific field-level change to ERC-8410 from Sept. 4’s activity, even though the discussion was open that day.

Ethereum was trading at $2,447.97, down 2.3% over 24 hours, per CoinGecko.