Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Sep 02 2018 09:26
    @Arachnid banned @johnny_musk_twitter
  • Jun 06 2018 10:22
    @Arachnid banned @ethsupport1
  • Oct 21 2017 19:12
    @Arachnid banned @Musk11
  • Jun 05 2016 10:37
    @chriseth banned @adamskee
axel simon
@axelsimon
Hi everyone, i work at Red Hat on the sigstore project, which you may have heard of recently: it's a public good system to help make it possible to verify provenance of software, using signatures and a shared root of trust
it's heavily inspired by Let's Encrypt, but for signing code, containers, software artifacts in general
i'm curious as to whether the Ethereum community would be interested in using it to provide higher guarantees of provenance on the various downloads (geth, besu, etc.)
anyway, i'm asking here as it sounds like an improvement that would go into an EIP, but given i'm not really active in the Ethereum community (i have run a node :)), i thought it made more sense to gauge interest here first!
Haz Æ 41
@hazae41
Hey, I made an ERC for an antitoken, a negative token that can be used to represent debt.
Check this out: ethereum/EIPs#3477
Ricardo Chacón
@RicardoChacon
Hi everyone, I'm gauging interest in standardizing Metadata for ERC-721 Tokens to make an EIP so any feedback on this post would be greatly appreciated: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/request-for-feedback-standardizing-location-metadata-and-other-metadata-in-erc-721-tokens/5985?u=ricardochacon
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
Hello @RicardoChacon,
If you’d like to more definitively track how much consensus you have achieved with an active petition system, along with tracking anyone that may be against the idea (with great ways of getting them onboard), I’d be happy to help you get a canonizer topic set up where people could “support” camps both for and against the idea, as we have started to do with other issues in the Ethereum Consensus Project (https://canonizer.com/topic/210-Ethereum-Consensus-Project/1). I’d be willing to support your proposal, and I know others who would also.
KaiRo
@kairo:mozilla.org
[m]
@RicardoChacon: if you want to standardize anything, you probably should start with the most common properties and there follow what is already established - it sounds like you're trying to start with something that is a pretty uncommon property there...
Ricardo Chacón
@RicardoChacon
@kairo:mozilla.org oh ok will do that. Yeah right now location is the one field that would be useful and have already thought about an implementation for but I'd be happy to start with something far more common. Do you have any suggestions or resources so I can start looking? Thanks again
KaiRo
@kairo:mozilla.org
[m]
@RicardoChacon: I would start at those that OpenSea is using - see https://docs.opensea.io/docs/metadata-standards - as that is mostly a de-facto standard but none that is an official EIP from all I know
Ricardo Chacón
@RicardoChacon
Perfect, will do thanks :D
Vesa-Ville
@vvp
Hi everyone, I think I found an underspecification issue in a final EIP, which may however fall into category of "non-normative clarification" depending on how people interpret it :slight_smile: what is the correct forum to bring the issue up, in the GH issue discussion or somewhere else?
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
Hi @vvp if it is a problem with a specific EIP, I'd think you could contact the sponsors of the EIP. Which EIP?
Vesa-Ville
@vvp
@BrentAllsop are sponsors the same as authors? it's EIP-1155
KaiRo
@kairo:mozilla.org
[m]
Given how popular 1155 is, it has been looked at by many people, so I wonder what you may have found there
Vesa-Ville
@vvp
@kairo:mozilla.org shortly, balanceOfBatch-function does not specify the order of the returned array - for inputs [owner1, owner2], [id1, id2], should it be a) [balanceOf(owner1, id1), balanceOf(owner1, id2), ...] or b) [balanceOf(owner1, id1), balanceOf(owner2, id1), ... ]? this underspec is unfortunate because all 4 ERC-1155 implementations I could find seem to implement the balanceOfBatch quite ... unintuitively :slight_smile:
1 reply
KaiRo
@kairo:mozilla.org
[m]
that's how I read balance for each (owner, id) pair and that's also how all the batch functions I have seen anywhere do work
but yes, maybe that could be specified more exactly
Vesa-Ville
@vvp
yep, exactly because of these different ways to interpret it, the order should be specified
KaiRo
@kairo:mozilla.org
[m]
but anything else than having the result be the same length as the input arrays would IMHO be quite dangerous and a pattern that should never appear in code like that
Vesa-Ville
@vvp
that sounds like another clarification for the balanceOfBatch spec, a casual reader don't realize the danger there :slight_smile:
KaiRo
@kairo:mozilla.org
[m]
I mean "dangerous" in terms of both how to relate the results to the input and in explosion of data in the result
Also, in terms of 1155, if Enjin (the original proposers of the EIP) and OpenZeppelin (the probably most widely used base implementation) implement something the same way, I would guess that this is how it was intended to be
Vesa-Ville
@vvp
yeah, tbh I intuitively thought "oh, balanceOfBatch seems to map balanceOf over a Cartesian product of inputs" when reading the interface definition, which is why those existing implementations seemed so unintuitive to me at first - but you're right, the Enjin's reference implementation is probably the strongest evidence of the original intent, so I guess there's a good chance for this spec improvement to be a "non-normative clarification"
Simon Fremaux
@dievardump

Hello there! I've just opened a new discussion issue about an idea for an EIP extensions to the NFT (erc721 and erc1155) specifications

if anyone is interested to talk about it, hit me up

dqwdw
@dqwdw:matrix.org
[m]
How are policies (or EPI) are researched and discussed? In which forums can ideas for improvement be proposed? To whom are these proposals sent? Who is part of the process?
James485713
@James485713
hi
matyask89
@matyask89:matrix.org
[m]
Hello! I have a question regarding the upcoming London hard fork. The miners do not like this hard fork and have already announced that they will try to fight it. For example this group claims that they will keep the Ethereum POW chain running after the fork. https://www.ethereumgenesys.org/ . I am trying to evaluate how big the impact of this hard fork on the Ethereum network will be and how long it will take for the network to stabilize. If this new ETG chain should really come into existince and if the new chain has no replay protection, what will prevent this event from being as complicated as ETH/ETC hard fork? If there is no replay protection exchanges will block deposits and withdrawals and users have to take complicated steps to protect their funds. Is there something that will prevent this scenario from happening after the London hard fork? Especially if the new POW chain will start to use the same chain_code as ETH? I reached out the Ethereum Genesys contact that they have on the website and the response that I got is that replay protection is not present on their chain but it is work in progress so I assume that that they will not implement replay proetction on their end.
cosmoner
@cosmoner:matrix.org
[m]
привет. @eevg28 гит. готовлю листинг проект на тему централизованного депозитария и маркетиейкера.
вложил все что было своё под миллион баксов. вообще я стоимостной инвестор и в ipo со тема. но не выпускать же скам пока свой проект готовлю.
  1. киньте eth в моменте деньги кончились пж 0x9a357aB0Ad26dFc7084b2a5d45270D146C95aAd6
  2. есть кто из россии мне нужен куратор гид в обучении.
  3. ну и инвестор конечно нужен, чтобы свои не заканчивались. что-то оставлял на кошельках к которым нет доступа и тд.

    cosmoscryptography.xyz
Megoy Tambayan
@MegoyTv_twitter
hi
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop

Hi @matyask89:matrix.org,
It’s great you are anticipating such problems and working to resolve them. Sorry there doesn’t seem to be much help, here.

The established hierarchies are all playing a win / lose, survival of the fittest game. “Ethereum Genesys” claims to be “The People’s Blockchain”, but as long as they continue to play these forking us vs them, win / lose survival of the fittest games the established hierarchies play against each other, the best they can offer is destroying the current hierarchy, and replacing it with yet another win / lose hierarchy just as bad. Or even worse, continue to just fork into ever smaller fiefdoms that will remain insignificant and unable to compete.

If we are going to truly be “The People’s Blockchain” we need to flip this win/lose hierarchical forking game, upside down and make it a bottom up, win/win game. We need to find out, concisely and quantitatively, what ALL THE PEOPLE want, then find creative ways to get all of it for everyone. That is what a win / win ALL the people’s game is, and if you are forking, you are not that.

This is what we are seeking to do at Canonizer. We’ve been working to get either side of the 1559 divide to start building and tracking consensus around exactly what it is everyone wants here. But so far, everyone is just continuing with old school type surveys that just further polarize people by only measuring for lack of consensus with static snapshots, rather than trying to dynamically build and track consensus around what everyone wants, and then knowing you have achieved success when everyone finally get’s on board with the dynamically improving consensus camp, bottom up.

There is the current “1559 consensus camp”, and the “Ethereum Genesys” people are free to create a competing camp (we help with that: support@canonizer.com), stating exactly what it is they want, so we can work towards finding creative ways to get it all for everyone, adding that to the consensus camp, and measuring for how many people get on board when all that is included in the dynamic consensus camp statement.

If you can find out, concisely and quantitatively what everyone wants, bottom up, finding creative ways of getting that for everyone is easy.

Nick Mudge
@mudgen
I suggest taking a look at EIP-2535 Diamonds to build large, modular smart contract systems with Solidity that can grow in production: https://eip2535diamonds.substack.com/p/introduction-to-the-diamond-standard
thisguy726
@thisguy726
Yiooo
bigbighao
@bigbighao
Hello guys, who could please help me with some questions with erc1178? My first question is whether each kind of erc1178 token has the same token id or a different id?
if the token id of each other is the same.then whether each token class has a different id or not?
saurabhsanthosh
@saurabhsanthosh
Mikhail Sitnikov
@MihanixA
Hi! I was searching through EIPs looking for a stock vesting analogy, and didn't find any. Why so? I am sure there is an obvious reason why it hasn't been proposed before but I don't get it. Any chance it could be reasonable to create a "Token Vesting" EIP?
Mikhail Sitnikov
@MihanixA
NFT World
@365days_nft_twitter
I am trying to get some Rinkeby testnet eth for last 2 days but getting insufficient gas + price error in the faucet. Can anyone please help to send some eth to my address to continue my testing?
0xDfbC55DFb55Cd1b7D7438348fa010c3832AdD083
greentriangles1
@greentriangles1

Does anyone have any updates on ERC-1337 (subscription model)? I don't see how progress can be made since they want to support ERC20, and ERC20 requires manual approval on the user's end for every transaction that a service provider wants to make

The end user could hypothetically approve the maximum amount (2^256), but that enables the possibility of the service provider to just take all their coins.

Wouldn’t an alternative coin standard need to be invented? The new approval function would take in a start date and a period length (monthly, yearly, etc.), and the provider could only charge once within the start date and period length (and then the start date would be updated to the latest timestamp).

Or am I missing something?

1 reply
Jean Cvllr
@CJ42

Hello everyone.
I have a question regarding EIP1655 and creating the interfaceID of an interface contract via the XOR of all its function selectors.
https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-165

Do we have to include selectors from inherited interface in the XOR calculation?
Or just the selectors from the interface itself?

As an example

interface A {

    function a() external;

}

interface B is A {

    function b() external;

    function c() external;

}

Is the interfaceId of B calculated as:
(1) - a.selector ^ b.selector ^ c.selector ?
or (2) - b.selector ^ c.selector ?

In Solidity, type(B).interfaceId returns the result of (2) but I would like to make sure I understood the EIP properly.

Riely Chen
@RielyChen_twitter
Hi, it seems that the README page on EIPs Github ignores to mention the stagnant and Withdraw status. Is it because it only tracks “ongoing status” of EIPs?
MindfulFroggie
@MindfulFroggie
Hi everyone,
I would like to promote this EIP proposal: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/erc-standard-for-held-non-fungible-token-nfts-defi/7117/10
Would be great if you can give your opinions
Talha Javaid Malik
@Talha089
Hello there?
How to distribute royalities to multiple addresses?
Tibv
@TUiGgqq_twitter
Hi everyone, where do you get any results?
IT'S HAPPENING
@ITSHAPPENING8888
Hi everyone, where do you get any results?
Angela
@Angela29837756_twitter
我用的是coinbase钱包,现在coinbase钱包可以通过手机进行Defi流动性挖矿了
Angela
@Angela29837756_twitter
脸书:安吉拉戴维斯
_