Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
c-new
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
eth-bot
added
e-consensus
EIPS/eip-is-contract.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Abstract | ||
|
|
||
| Allow EOF contracts to discriminate between EOA (Externally Owned Accounts) and smart contract accounts by introducing an `IS_CONTRACT` instruction. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Allow EOF contracts to discriminate between EOA (Externally Owned Accounts) and smart contract accounts by introducing an `IS_CONTRACT` instruction. | |
| Allow EOF contracts to discriminate between EOA (Externally Owned Accounts) and contracts (including smart contract accounts) by introducing an `IS_CONTRACT` instruction. |
ERC-721/1155 transfer checks are required for contracts, irrespective of whether they are contract accounts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@abcoathup Actually, we'd like a clarification of your suggestion. "smart contract accounts" was a mental shortcut intending to mean "EVM state accounts with code", and probably that wording is clearer and more specific. Next, maybe we change "smart contract accounts" to "smart contract wallets" to avoid confusion. Would this work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is what I have in mind: 2be26b3 - I think "contract account" is a well established and simple term, hope this works.
Co-authored-by: Andrew B Coathup <28278242+abcoathup@users.noreply.github.com>
|
The commit 17ac984 (as a parent of 7458c67) contains errors. |
frangio
left a comment
frangio
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would address my concerns and I would love to see it adopted.
EIPS/eip-7761.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### Keep code introspection banned | ||
|
|
||
| Removing code introspection is one of the tenets of EOF and `IS_CONTRACT` would be an exception from the principle. Without `IS_CONTRACT`, ERC-721 and ERC-1155 standard implementations have to resort to either: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My understanding is that the purpose of removing code introspection is to enable future semantics-preserving transformations of code already deployed on chain. In this sense IS_CONTRACT would not be an obstacle at all, so I think it's debatable whether it would be an exception to that principle.
pdobacz
changed the title
|
I think we should consider naming this opcode
|
g11tech
left a comment
g11tech
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm seeing all issues have been addressed
eth-bot
left a comment
eth-bot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...
6 participants
Allow EOF contracts to discriminate between EOA (Externally Owned Accounts) and smart contract accounts by introducing an
IS_CONTRACTinstruction.This EIP responds to a community request to keep a way to distinguish between EOA and smart contract accounts in EOF, c.f. ACDE #195