EIP Editing Office Hour #82 (EIP + ERC)

Transcript

Loading developers...

[music] Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> What's up?

Thank you. Heat. Heat. [music] >> Welcome to EIP editing office hour. This

EIP Editing Office Hour Introduction

is meeting number 82 and it is added on Ethereum/PM GitHub repository with issue number 1839. On agenda, we have a bunch of PRs to be moved to final status. A few for review, miscellaneous, and another handful of draft proposals which are suggested by the authors. Uh in the comment section, we are also joined by some authors who would want to uh maybe ask some questions from the editor while it is being reviewed. And we are joined by editor Sam Wilson. Thank you Sam for joining us here today and we can perhaps go ahead and get started with PR number 1340 which is on ERC repository.

>> Sure. >> And we are joined by Filipe and Nabil from the team in case you have any question >> 13 4. >> Yep. Let's see merge now. >> Yeah. So the reason why this one merged is just because um if you don't edit the EIP itself, the bot is not smart enough to figure out who to uh mark as an appro as a reviewer. So um yeah, that's all that was happening here. >> Cool. Thank you. Um I wonder if there is any further question for editor or you guys are good.

>> We're good. Thank you. >> Thank you so much for joining. Um thank you very much. >> Next we are joined by umwang and the PR number is 1408 on ERC repository. >> All right. Cool. So, let's just give this a quick read through. I don't expect there to be any problems, but uh yeah.

Yeah, that seems fine. >> So, we have a standard moved into final status. Next, we are joined by German and the PR number is 1158 in ERC repository. All right, let's take a look. and balance up here.

Prepaid your simulator transfer. Yes. How interesting. Okay. Great [clears throat] description. By the way, I completely understand I think at least what your proposal is is about which is nice. Um, the CC20 just been 20 tokens invite storage for balances as well as you play.

>> Thank you. I'm trying to join also from my laptop uh because I have more access to copy paste and write but I don't know if you get the the request as well. Uh I'm sorry. So the PR that we are currently reviewing does not seem to be of 8003 but that's the link I found in in the chat uh in the comment section. So are you planning to share another one? No, no, it's that one is fine and and it's exactly what is being reviewed.

But I can see very very clear because I'm from the phone. I I as access >> I as get access from my laptop also to join the call. Maybe you see me in the in the waiting room so I can read better what is on the screen. >> Uh unfortunately there is no one in the waiting room because uh the meeting is open. Anybody can join at any point of time. May you want to retry. >> I tried again. I sent you a DM with the

screenshot, but it's okay. I will continue from the phone. No problem. >> Ah. Um, sorry, German. I I I just noticed your screenshot looks like you are trying another Zoom link which uh is not working currently. So can you please try the link that I shared with you? Uh that is the correct one to join. Maybe that's a little confusion here. Yes, I was using the the link that was on our call the previous one. Thank you.

Sorry. Okay, now I can clearly see everything. >> No worries at all. >> Yeah, I see you in now. So the thing here was that after after the review from Victor um I I got the you know what I was saying in my in my talk at the at DevConet in the EAP summit a lot of error from the bot the reviewer h but I corrected all of them already. So I I sorry I made a lot of tries a lot of tries I was using AI to to correct that was not a good

option. So finally I I made it manually and worked Okay, I think I think the fire alarm's

Discussion on Gas Optimization Techniques

done. Okay. [snorts] Uh the the observer effects >> I I I saw you Sam I saw you you asked it about the ERC71A is the asukis implementation but as I can't uh put a link because it's it's not an ERC itself. is an is an extension external extension but okay is it this one here on the mint time and pay more gas later

when you want to transfer a token. So this is same principles opposite mechanism. >> Okay. It was like extremely extremely useful on 2022 and 2021 because just to give an example in some mint mint wars where where the spikes were like paying2 to $3,000 for a mint I'm not exaggerating h there was like two to three,000 example in the in the other side uh minting from the board

apes collection uh Google apps uh you to me you had to pay $3,000 with this you will be saving like at less 1,500 and and so that that will mean a lot and now I'm I'm doing for the opposite case it's is paying pay now a little more it's like renting you know the the the storage and then you pay less when when a token lands or there could be a potential spike of gas and there is the graphs that shows how this works in in reality and also there is examples.

>> Yeah, that makes perfect sense. All right. It's Okay.

Interesting. Okay. So there is a small issue with this proposal and that is there is no observable effects of this proposal except for I guess pre-initialize address. Um so like um you talk a lot about storing a particular sentinel value uh in in um the the the balance but that is kind of an implementation detail. There's nothing about uh ERC 721 that says you have to use a mapping. You could use anything. Um if you wanted to deploy a whole contract every time that somebody

wanted to to mint a token, you're allowed to do that. So the standard here would just be pre-initialize address and then you describe the observable effects which would be something like um what would be a good way to put it like do whatever actions are necessary to pre-allocate storage to reduce gas cost um because like nothing in here is saying what the sentinel value is or or anything like that. um and the observable effects are just revert um or not revert but interpreted as zero. So it's kind of like this entire proposal is implementation details which makes it not a great fit for an ERC.

Um yeah, that's not to say it's a bad idea. >> Sorry. Uh I think um I I'm I'm using the justification of how it works and the well the in the interface the the implementation is up to each developer. I I made a contract for for showing an implementation demo but the the only requirement is to create the pre-initialization uh because it can save gas and to make this happen should be through an

implementations using bytes h the bytes uh in place of uh the unit because of what I'm telling of that you can pre-initializate with zero because will not work and also because uh if you pre-initialize with a magic number and then don't consider in the accounting will break it in the in the global accounting of the contract. So I'm not sure is if if this answers what what you are telling me about that this is more an an implementation specification but uh regarding 7 to1 this is not applying to

Proposal Implementation Discussion

7 to1 is is the analogy is to explain the concept of a wide adopted uh implementation because was was important the gas spikes are important for the community and and and at at the end for each user for the user experience on on Ethereum and this this abboards that problem from a different perspective also as you can see the implementation the interface is permissionless so also wallets can can be able to pre-initialate the addresses for a token for their own users also so well more more or less is Yeah, that makes sense. Um, so it's not

about the like what you've written is absolutely an excellent idea. Like there's no argument here. I think this is great. Um, it's just that it's not a good fit for an ERC because it doesn't really describe how two things have to like coordinate together. So um like any ERC uh 721 implementation could do this and it would make no observable difference in their interface um like for like other contracts or wallets that are interacting with it. So this isn't really like um something that

requires coordination. It's just like this might be better suited as like a blog post or uh a library or something along those lines um than an ERC. Um >> okay, I get it. So the the interface of the ERC20 will change because a pre-initialization address function will be added and that's it. And and and this needs coordination from my perspective. But maybe I need to understand better what you are telling me. So I will I will take a deep deeper look at it and and implementation needs to be done. If this interface

wants to be um this interface function wants to be added. uh you can't do this without uh internally because the user will not be able to pre-initialize their own addresses or the wallet. >> Yeah, it's just talking like this part here is fine. This this makes sense. Um but talking about a sentinel value and a mapping, those are implementation details. Um, so you shouldn't really mention them in this specification section. You should just say like pre-initialize address has these observable effects and then in the

reference implementation section you could talk about a specific way you can implement that which would be a sentinel value. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you for for for this uh review and these observations. >> Let me tell you I I'm new on this. >> Oh, yeah. No, not a problem. It's like >> I just want to make it very clear that like this is an excellent idea. I don't think it's a bad idea. Um, it's just needs a little bit of tweaking to to make it in as a as a as a standard. Um, Yeah. Uh, thanks Luke for catching that.

Um, All

right. >> Cool. >> All right. Um, so with that we are all caught up with the authors here. Thank you German for joining. Thank you Sam for your time and that great review. Uh this this was very interesting. Thank you for that. >> So before we uh move to the next one, I just want to mention have you heard about um gas tokens. >> Yes. Yes, I studied them. It's very interesting and but it's not working anymore because of the upgrades but was a very interesting concept. I guess was a trick.

Gas Tokens and Proposal Finalization

>> Yeah. Yeah. So, u wait I guess don't you still get a refund if you clear a storage? Yes, but this doesn't work as as previously was before for the for that's why they were like storing a lot of gas in some contract and then in a in a in a in a contest fraction they were just doing contract protection and free that storage spaces slot so you get like a refund and you pay very very cheaper but this is not working anymore.

>> Okay, cool. So where are we off to next? >> So we can get into the final proposals. There are a bunch of proposals from the Fusaka upgrade. I guess they are just waiting to be moved to final and some ERC's as well. Okay,

it's good. 754. What fork is this getting included in?

Yeah. Okay. [sighs] >> I think they both are from Fusaka 7918. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's what I thought. It's just um Where's the moving it to final 7594? Yeah, interesting. now you're still on the last call.

>> Yeah, I guess not all authors have made the PR yet. Last call deadline, Sam. Oh, yes. Thank you. Okay, so hopefully this just won't merge immediately because it still needs

author approval. Yeah. >> Yeah. I left a note in the ACD uh discord that please make PRs. Um I guess not all of them have done it yet. I didn't want to do that because otherwise it will always wait for author's approval. So yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. That looks good.

But I guess there was another one there. 7594 H okay. Um so I will make this as a draft So, we'll leave that. Leave that. This

one I can't approve yet. I'm going review to final. >> That's funny. So that would put it on December 30th. the conception of tokens with fun. Yep. Okay. Money

And that's good. Did we miss miss 7918? Sam, >> I think that's the one I can't merge right now because um the other one needs to go. Yeah. Um 7594 needs to go to final first.

>> Oh, okay. Okay, got it. Move to file. >> so we have three final so far.

>> Oh, wait. That was this one. 27 913. Do you? Okay. [sighs and gasps] that was sent 1301.

I think we already did. Okay. So, let's go to review over to review. Actually, some of these do seem more

Review Process Discussion

like requirements. So, I'm not going to just edit this. I'll leave some comments. Okay. So, Good thing is that this proposal is just to move in review. We have plenty of time to like >> Yeah.

>> revised. >> Exactly. Um Uh 7866.

What are we doing here? Moving to review. Let's see. Decentralized user profiles and decentraliz segmented avatars per profile. See parent tokens. A nice example.

Nobody. 7866

78 8 93. Three. All right, let's see what we've got here.

Nice. Okay, cool. So, um, right. I think See it face in your skin.

Too strong. must have been one should have been

risk. Okay, that's good. My expression values in E3 18 decimals for K. Okay. Yeah.

So What a word this change it

works changes. yeah, I can't really think of a good way to word this, so I'm just going to leave it. Um the question okay validating parameters first.

Yep. It's good. That's good. Okay. Remember this stuff

sure doesn't change too much. Okay. [sighs]

Meeting Conclusion and Future Plans

All right. Well, I'm going to call it here. Thanks everybody for coming out. I have another call, so I will talk to you all later. >> Thank you so much, Sam, for joining us here today. And for people uh who are on the call and listening it uh um online um this perhaps could be the last call of the year. I would go back and check with editors for rest of the two weeks. If anyone is available to take the office hour, we can have them scheduled. So please u check out the Ethereum/PM GitHub repository for the next office hour call. However, uh this is not the end of the review for the year. Um, editors are diligently reviewing it async as well. So, please keep uh making

changes as suggested by editors and we hope to get them reviewed and merge sooner rather than later. Thank you all for joining us here today. >> What's happening?

Jesus. >> Heat [music] up here.