status-im/EIPs
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/status-im/EIPs.git synced 2025-02-23 12:18:16 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Automatically merged updates to draft EIP(s) 2718 (#2798)

Browse Source 
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:

 - It only modifies existing Draft or Last Call EIP(s)
 - The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
 - The build is passing
This commit is contained in:
Micah Zoltu 2020-07-18 16:20:23 +08:00 committed by GitHub
parent 1f0199957b
commit ce4f40f647
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
EIPS/eip-2718.md
View File

@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ requires: 155
Defines a new transaction type that is an envelope for future transaction types.
## Abstract
As of `FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER`, `rlp([TransactionType, Payload])` will be a valid transaction where `TransactionType` is a number identifying the format of the transaction and `payload` is the transaction, whose definition is defined in future EIPs. The first new transaction type will be a wrapped legacy transaction with the format `rlp([0, rlp([nonce, gasPrice, gasLimit, to, value, data, v, r, s])])`.
`rlp([TransactionType, Payload])` will become a valid transaction and `rlp([TransactionType, Payload])` will become a valid transaction receipt where `TransactionType` is a number identifying the format of the transaction and `payload` is the transaction/receipt contents, whose definition is defined in future EIPs. The first new transaction type will be a wrapped legacy transaction with the format `rlp([0, rlp([nonce, gasPrice, gasLimit, to, value, data, v, r, s])])` and a wrapped legacy receipt with the format `rlp([0, rlp([status, cumulativeGasUsed, logsBloom, logs])])`.
## Motivation
In the past, when we have wanted to add new transaction types we have had to ensure they were backward compatible with all other transactions, meaning that you could differentiate them based only on the encoded payload, and it was not possible to have a transaction that matched both types. This was seen in [EIP-155](./eip-155.md) where the new value was bit-packed into one of the encoded fields. There are multiple proposals in discussion that define new transaction types such as one that allows EOA accounts to execute code directly within their context, one that enables someone besides `msg.sender` to pay for gas, and proposals related to layer 0 multi-sig transactions. These all need to be defined in a way that is mutually compatible, which quickly becomes burdensome to EIP authors and to clients who now have to follow complex rules for differentiating transaction type.