* Change in author's email address.
* Move to Final Call
This ERC has been implemented for a while by several wallet applications: WallETH, MyCrypto, Q-Wallet, MetaMask (partial), Status (partial) and possibly others.
* Revert "Move to Final Call"
This reverts commit 48a8a895e5e096c3580bb7d6e68247c51bb42cf4.
* Revert "Change in author's email address."
This reverts commit 98529459e09fb163a41b0214ff2ece768696c7e3.
* Replace author's email address by github handle
Following suggestion by @lightclient
Co-authored-by: Daniel A. Nagy <nagy.da@gmail.com>
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
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
Let the change control system do what the change control system was designed to do. It is entirely redundant to store change history in the EIP itself and it just adds an ever growing clutter to an already too long (IMO) process description. If anyone wants to see the history they easily can. Also, the history section said to see the history button in the top right of this EIP but that only works if you view this EIP from GitHub, not from any other interface.
* Cleans up EIP-55
This EIP was written in a time when we were using EIPs for hardfork coordination and we weren't worried too much about link rot. However, times have changed and maintaining EIPs like this is becoming more and more of a burden. In this case, the specification is what is important, not who implements it. Also, editors do not want to maintain external links to things that don't add *significant* value.
* Update eip-55.md
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
[JSON-RPC](https://www.jsonrpc.org/specification) specifies that when a
client sends an `id`, the _Server MUST reply with the same value in the
Response object_.
In [./EIPs/eip-695.md] example, the client sent `id: 1` and the server
replied `id: 83`.
This commit updates Client's request to send `id: 83` instead.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
* EIP-2930: Updates transaction format to match EIP-2718
2718 has the first byte of every transaction be the transaction type, and the remaining bytes are interpreted however this EIP wants. This is the minimal change required to get it in line with 2718 so I think we should merge this ASAP and then continue discussion on whether we think this is the optimal format or not.
* Update EIPS/eip-2930.md
Co-authored-by: lightclient <14004106+lightclient@users.noreply.github.com>
* Changes same thing in more places.
Co-authored-by: lightclient <14004106+lightclient@users.noreply.github.com>
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
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
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
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
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
Rendered file: https://github.com/rekmarks/EIPs/blob/2016/EIPS/eip-3085.md
This PR adds EIP-3085, which introduces the wallet_addEthereumChain RPC method. It's basically EIP-2015, without requiring the network to be switched.
I think 2015 is a great idea, but wallets may desire an RPC method that only adds a chain, without requiring that the network is changed. For example, allowing dapps to request network changes is bound to cause UX issues, especially as we see dapps moving to different layer 2 chains.
Main points:
- Reprice sha256 and Ripemd160 precompiles after #2046 changes and to better reflect current performance and internal structures of the computations performed
- Reprice Keccak256 native function and reflect internal structures of the computations performed
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
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
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
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
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
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 has been discussed a few times. The main problem is that editors have a challenge finding EIP authors and getting their response, unless there is a clear GitHub username. This is blocking a lot of outstanding change requests.
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
EIPs have a new set of statuses, Accepted is no longer a status but we accidentally mass updated Accepted => Final, when it should have been Accepted => Review.
