ChainAgnostic
Extend CAIP-10 with CAIP-69, designating chainID 0 for EOAs
I think this makes sense, but in my opinion it should be a PR on the namespaces repo.
In particular I think it could just be added as a new section to eip155/caip10
Oh wow I didn't know this existed...
Yep, I think we should namespace against EVM based networks only
I think this makes sense, but in my opinion it should be a PR on the namespaces repo.
GREAT CALL! We will add it there too.
In particular I think it could just be added as a new section to eip155/caip10
Yeah we were wondering if we can change it or not since it is marked "Final" I made the assumption that it would need to be extended with a new CAIP instead of amended.... but honestly a new paragraph there is great, if we can make it as simple as that.
I think we probably need @pedrouid's input on the namespaces PR, but pretty sure it wouldn't break anything. Worst case we can figure out a different way of doing an extension spec in the namespaces.
Honestly I don't have any objection with allowing ZERO as a chainId to flag EOAs
But this definitely should not be its own CAIP and instead it should be part of the EVM namespace profile
Let's move this conversation to ChainAgnostic/namespaces
There isn't a ton of precedent for opening PRs on eip155/caipX.md files, so i'm happy to help on github or in DM/backchannel, @GriffGreen ! I like the basic idea and implementers have been asking for some kind of wildcard/offchain entry in the CAIP-10 namespace for a while, so I'm glad to see someone proposing a path forward.
@ligi has anyone ever tried registering a NEGATIVE chainId, or a float/decimal chainId? it's kind of odd how little eip155 actually says about the data type or domain of chainId qua variable. there was an EIP to make it more explicitly typed as BIGINT and thus define a maximum value but it seems to have gotten lost and never merged.
@GregTheGreek wow i just saw this for the first time. you might need to update it or withdraw it, lest some trickster add themself as co-author and revive it in a way that confuses or confounds OP's proposed behavior 😅 https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-3788
No I have never seen a negative or floating point chainId - my CI for ethereum-lists/chains should also fail in this case.
@GregTheGreek wow i just saw this for the first time. you might need to update it or withdraw it, lest some trickster add themself as co-author and revive it in a way that confuses or confounds OP's proposed behavior 😅 https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-3788
I'm still standing strong with that one
There isn't a ton of precedent for opening PRs on eip155/caipX.md files, so i'm happy to help on github or in DM/backchannel, @GriffGreen ! I like the basic idea and implementers have been asking for some kind of wildcard/offchain entry in the CAIP-10 namespace for a while, so I'm glad to see someone proposing a path forward.
hey @bumblefudge ! I would like to raise the PR on behalf of @GriffGreen , in the correct repo.. could you please help
Based on the discussions from last 2 weeks, I have raised a PR for EOA support in CAIP 10 in namespaces repo https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/namespaces/pull/107, would appreciate any help/suggestions for same @GregTheGreek @GriffGreen @oed @pedrouid .
Closing because addressed by ^ the corresponding PR (now merged) on /namespaces