Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing draft 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 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 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 EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
* correct precompile address; expand on motivation; add links to implementation PRs
* return length is 4 octets, not 1; more text polish
* typo
* expand implementation section; add link to cpp-ethereum PR
* Create blockhash_refactoring.md
Stores blockhashes in the state, reducing the protocol complexity and the need for client implementation complexity in order to process the BLOCKHASH opcode. Also extends the range of how far back blockhash checking can go, with the side effect of creating direct links between blocks with very distant block numbers, facilitating much more efficient initial light client syncing.
* Update blockhash_refactoring.md
* Update blockhash_refactoring.md
* Update blockhash_refactoring.md
* Update blockhash_refactoring.md
* Update blockhash_refactoring.md
* Update blockhash_refactoring.md
* Update blockhash_refactoring.md
* Update blockhash_refactoring.md
* Update blockhash_refactoring.md
* Update blockhash_refactoring.md
* Rename blockhash_refactoring.md to eip-210.md
* Create eip-draft_uniformity_between_0xAb5801a7D398351b8bE11C439e05C5B3259aeC9B_and_0x15E55EF43efA8348dDaeAa455F16C43B64917e3c.md
* Fix typo
* Use pull request ID as tentative EIP
I think this might fix the Travis CI build errors
* Update and rename eip-draft_uniformity_between_0xAb5801a7D398351b8bE11C439e05C5B3259aeC9B_and_0x15E55EF43efA8348dDaeAa455F16C43B64917e3c.md to eip-1010.md
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing draft EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
* Claim a random number
* Add specification
* Add rationale
* Improve wording
* Improve formatting
* Improve wording
* Specify the account values for balance, nonce, code, and storage
* Be more specific about a hard-fork
* Add poc implementation for Parity
* Improve formatting
* Improve formatting
* Make sure the total supply will be unchanged.
* Point to relevant changes in chain spec.
* Remove contracts/#74 code from the proposal.
* Use the old but patched library
* Highlight differences to the initially deployed contract
* Add code and storage for the stateDiff
* Update resources
* Update resources
* Add correct discussion URL
* Standard Track -> Standards Track
* Link the PR for Parity
* Rationale on unchanged Ether supply
* Split specification alternatives via bytecode vs. codehash
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing draft 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 EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
* Add Github usernames
* Remove about.me link from triangular brackets
* Add @ before usernames, also note the previous commit was adding content from the original PR.
#908
* parentheses instead of triangular brackets: (@Githubusername)
* replace and with ,
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing draft 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 EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
* Create eip-Reward-full-nodes-validating-tx.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-validating-tx.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-validating-tx.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-validating-tx.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-validating-tx.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-validating-tx.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-validating-tx.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-validating-tx.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-validating-tx.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-validating-tx.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-validating-tx.md
* Update and rename eip-Reward-full-nodes-validating-tx.md to eip-Reward-full-nodes-and-clients.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-and-clients.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-and-clients.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-and-clients.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-and-clients.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-and-clients.md
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-and-clients.md
* Quotes for Micah
* The amount of computation to validate a transaction will be the same as a miner...
* Add comments on Micah's suggestions and give further specification details
* Further commentary on transaction fee amount for full nodes vs miner tx fees
* Add "One problem with this is that a miner could run a full node validator using a different address with the same computer, and just cache the result of their execution and use it for the full node validator. I'm not sure how you would prevent this, but perhaps you could using IP address tracking (similarly asserting that the IP address of a full node validator isn't the same as the miner) which would add additional complexity to the protocol, but this could also be hacked with dynamic IPs and VPNs."
* he user agent would contain the information needed to send an amount of ETH to the full node and the client, which are the addresses of these parties and the amounts to add. I think full nodes would need to add to their set up to add the address to receive ETH after validating transactions. These fields could be read-only, or immutable, so that someone can't overwrite them with another address, thus preventing one possible attack.
* Add a missing T
* Update frontmatter
* Comment out implementation, add backwards incompatibility
* Update the specification, rewording and moving content
* Update the header, Test Cases and Implementation
* Update eip-Reward-full-nodes-and-clients.md
* Chamge the category to Core
* to be assigned => <to be assigned>
* discussions-to: https://gitter.im/ethereum/topics/topic/5ac8574227c509a774e7901a/eip-reward-full-nodes-and-clients
* Move around fields in the header
* Add an extra line to see if that will get the build to pass
* Assign eip number 908
* Rename eip-Reward-full-nodes-and-clients.md to eip-908.md
* ERC777 A New Advanced Token Standard
* ERC777: Add ERC777 Logo
* ERC777: Normalize EIP/ERC names
* ERC777: Spec for tokensToSend when burning tokens
* ERC777: Update official repository
* ERC777: Clarification and corrections
- Clarify unclear sections of the spec
- Fix typos and grammar mistakes
- Improve aesthetics of the text
* ERC777: Change terminology of the repo, small fix
- Don't refer to the repo as the official repo but the repo of the
reference implementation
- Fix a small typo in the AuthorizedOperator event
* ERC777: logo & release to public domain (CC0)
* ERC777: Use markdown not html & relative links
* ERC777: Adapt to new EIP template
* ERC777: Use solidity syntax and fix relative links
* ERC777: Add discussions-to link
* ERC777: Fix link in discussion-to
* ERC777: Fix image links
* ERC777: Fix eip type
* ERC777: Update header
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing draft EIP(s)
- The PR was approved or written by at least one author of each modified EIP
- The build is passing
* ERC-820 Pseudo-introspection using a registry contract.
* Typos, links, and better explanation of Nicks deployment method
* Formating fix
* Email address
* solidity syntax highlight
* Adapt to new template for EIPs
* Discussions link added
* Fix link in discussion-to
* Type fixed
- Create `assets` folder
- Move existing EIPs (1, 107, 858) assets into the `assets` folder
- Update link to assets in EIPs 1, 107 and 858
- Describe the inclusion of assets for EIPs in `README.md`
Hi, I'm a bot! This change was automatically merged because:
- It only modifies existing draft EIP(s)
- The creator of this PR is listed as an author on all modified EIP(s)
- The build is passing
* Added initial ASIC-resistant EIP details
* Format fixed
* Format fixed
* Format fixed
* Format fixed
* Format fixed
* Grammar fixes
* Added mention of more invasive hash algorithm replacements
* Added mention of the single duplicate in 0x010001cf
* Adjusted language to remove speculation and focus on the purpose and motivation of this pull request
* Assigned EIP number and discussion URL, altered language to be more descriptive about the intention and risk. Removed unneeded Concensus/Block field changes.
* Clarified FNV rational, provided code for basic sanity FNV candidate analysis and FNV selection, grammar fixes
James Ray
juztin
Nick Savers
Jorge Izquierdo
ligi
Nick Johnson
Danny Ryan
Tobias Oberstein
vbuterin
Anderson Wesley
HsiaChiHao
Noel Maersk
phiferd
Afri Schoedon
Domino Valdano
bitspill
gluk256
Joe Jordan
Jordi Baylina
David Stanfill
Jacques Dafflon
Yoichi Hirai
MattLongCT
Dave Sag