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
ERC 681 has been implemented for a while by several wallet applications: WallETH, MyCrypto, Q-Wallet, MetaMask (partial), Status (partial) and possibly others. I believe that it is a de-facto standard and therefore it is time to finalize it as such.
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
* 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>
We forgot to update the statuses here, which causes Review items to not appear on the EIPs site.
I also re-ordered things in the *hope* that they show up on the page in this order, though I suspect they won't.
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
* Rewords Motivation section of template.
While this section is more clear to EIP authors than most, it still requires coaching. Also, the wording was written back when EIPs were tightly coupled with hard fork coordination, which is no longer the case.
* Improved wording.
Co-authored-by: lightclient <14004106+lightclient@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: lightclient <14004106+lightclient@users.noreply.github.com>
* Adds words to abstract definition.
I have to coach almost every EIP author on what the abstract is, integrating into the template will hopefully help with that process.
* Improved wording.
Co-authored-by: lightclient <14004106+lightclient@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: lightclient <14004106+lightclient@users.noreply.github.com>
In reality, the `Implementation` section almost always involves someone linking out to a personal or company repository when they create an EIP from the template. External repositories cause problems because:
1. Links move/change over time and eventually the link will be dead.
2. The implementation likely isn't CC0 as the EIP is, and naive users may follow the link not realizing it is GPL and they are screwing themselves legally.
3. People are using EIPs for advertising their project, and they look for any opportunity they can to link out to their project in the body of the EIP.
4. People often link to some monolithic repository (e.g., go-ethereum) as the "implementation" which is less than useful.
Also, the description was written back when EIPs were part of the hard fork coordination process, so that has been rewritten.
This change makes it so it is more clear that this section is optional and that external links are not the preferred solution to completing this section.
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.
EIPs are technical documents, not part of the hard fork coordination process aside from being an asset in that process. Consensus and politics are not relevant to EIPs.
* 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
