I'm updating EIP statuses according to #2996. The mappings are as follows:
```
Draft => Draft
Last Call => Last Call
Accepted => Final
Final => Final
Superseded => Final
Abandoned => Withdrawn
Rejected => Withdrawn
Active => Living
```
I have gone through and updated all existing EIPs to match this rule, including EIP-1.
In some cases, people were using markdown citations, I suspect because the long-form was a bit verbose to inline. Since the relative path is quite short, I moved these to inline but I wouldn't be opposed to putting them back to citation format if that is desired by the authors.
In doing the migration/cleanup, I found some EIP references to EIPs that don't actually exist. In these cases I tried to excise the reference from the EIP as best I could.
It is worth noting that the Readme actually already had this rule, it just wasn't expressed properly in EIP-1 and the "Citation Format" section of the readme I think caused people a bit of confusion (when citing externally, you should use the citation format).
* Try to clarify the meaning of EIP fields
* Remove unhelpful extra comments in the template
* Change EIP-1491 from CRLF to LF
* Remove template comments from EIPs
* Fix heading: Abstarct -> Abstract
* Update EIP-2014
* Change author list of EIP-1
This EIP hasn't been touched for over 2 years. As an author on the EIP, I don't even remember what it is at this point and after reviewing it I no longer hold any opinions I may have held on the topic two years ago. Unless @jamesray1 plans on pushing for this, I am recommending we mark it as abandoned.
If someone later decides to pick it up again, we can always bring it back to DRAFT.
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
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
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
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
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
* 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 ,
* 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
