ALGUST
Bitalgo / TerraUSD
crypto

Don't be sorry, questions are how these things improve.
> How does the additional complexity of wrapping transactions and handling alternative signature algorithms affect the performance of nodes and the network as a whole?
It would naturally cause at least a little overhead, that's why the gas penalty is in place. It places economic disincentives for transactions that could cause performance degredation in nodes. So while it may reduce network performance (for large overhead algorithms), it'll be more efficient than doing it on the EVM.
> What are the security guarantees provided by the alternative signature algorithms supported by EIP-7932, and how do they compare to secp256k1?
The security guarantees provided by each algorithm is unique to the algorithm. The EIP mandates at least some form of security analysis to ensure that they are on par with / better than the security of secp256k1. However, the EIP only defines a standard for algorithms, they can have arbitrary data as long as they return an address or an error. So it is impossible to know based solely of this EIP.
> While EIP-7932 seems to be backward compatible, how will existing smart contracts and dApps interact with these new transaction types? Are there any potential breaking changes or edge cases to consider?
EIP-7932 transactions *should* behave exactly as what they are wrapping, this prevents a significant portion of edge cases as dApps just see address `0x123...` interacted with contract `0x1234...`.
> By not generating a transaction receipt for EIP-7932 transactions, how will this affect transaction tracking, monitoring, and analytics tools that rely on receipt data? If I am reading this right and EIP-7932 transactions won't have a receipt what are the implications for smart contracts that depend on transaction receipts for their functionality?
EIP-7932 transactions **do** generate receipts, just not a `ALG_TX_TYPE` receipt (e.g. a wrapped EIP-1559 tx emits a EIP-1559 receipt). This is to minimize differences with non-wrapped transactions. All external tools just receive the exact same receipt as a non-wrapped tx would provide.
> How will EIP-7932 transactions be handled by light clients and SPV (Simplified Payment Verification) nodes, which have limited computational resources?
Note: I know only the basics about light and SPV nodes.
This should be considered in each separate algorithm's specification. They should be processed the same as nomal secp256k1.

Don't be sorry, questions are how these things improve.
> How does the additional complexity of wrapping transactions and handling alternative signature algorithms affect the performance of nodes and the network as a whole?
It would naturally cause at least a little overhead, that's why the gas penalty is in place. It places economic disincentives for transactions that could cause performance degredation in nodes. So while it may reduce network performance (for large overhead algorithms), it'll be more efficient than doing it on the EVM.
> What are the security guarantees provided by the alternative signature algorithms supported by EIP-7932, and how do they compare to secp256k1?
The security guarantees provided by each algorithm is unique to the algorithm. The EIP mandates at least some form of security analysis to ensure that they are on par with / better than the security of secp256k1. However, the EIP only defines a standard for algorithms, they can have arbitrary data as long as they return an address or an error. So it is impossible to know based solely of this EIP.
> While EIP-7932 seems to be backward compatible, how will existing smart contracts and dApps interact with these new transaction types? Are there any potential breaking changes or edge cases to consider?
EIP-7932 transactions *should* behave exactly as what they are wrapping, this prevents a significant portion of edge cases as dApps just see address `0x123...` interacted with contract `0x1234...`.
> By not generating a transaction receipt for EIP-7932 transactions, how will this affect transaction tracking, monitoring, and analytics tools that rely on receipt data? If I am reading this right and EIP-7932 transactions won't have a receipt what are the implications for smart contracts that depend on transaction receipts for their functionality?
EIP-7932 transactions **do** generate receipts, just not a `ALG_TX_TYPE` receipt (e.g. a wrapped EIP-1559 tx emits a EIP-1559 receipt). This is to minimize differences with non-wrapped transactions. All external tools just receive the exact same receipt as a non-wrapped tx would provide.
> How will EIP-7932 transactions be handled by light clients and SPV (Simplified Payment Verification) nodes, which have limited computational resources?
Note: I know only the basics about light and SPV nodes.
This should be considered in each separate algorithm's specification. They should be processed the same as nomal secp256k1.