Francisco Giordano
Francisco Giordano
Closing for the reasons stated above.
@hack3r-0m I think both. If we allow creation of multiple choice proposals we need to be clear about the meaning of such a proposal. @Amxx Yes that sounds like something...
Multiple choice proposals are those where the outcome is not "Yes or No", but "A or B or C or ...". Proposals with sub-proposals, or voting with numeric scores, sounds...
We really want to do this, but [the current text of EIP-2612](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2612#specification) is very explicit that the permit is an ECDSA signature by the token owner address: > - `r`,...
@juniset Just to clarify I meant opening a pull request directly with the change ready to be accepted by the authors of the EIP. I think this will be a...
The storage layout is incompatible because of the nonces mapping in `Votes`, which in ERC20Votes is reused from ERC20Permit as pointed out here. Other than that, some variables were wrapped...
Changed the title to make it clearer but as the description says this also implies changing `ERC20Permit` so it doesn't invoke the constructor of EIP712.
I'm skeptical about the usefulness of ERC165 in this context. Will reconsider the PR if ERC173 moves forward.
Thank you @3sGgpQ8H. Can you elaborate on what exactly makes the current implementation inefficient and what is the reason we would see an improvement with the link you shared?
Got it. Agree with the first point. Perhaps we should have a general purpose `Math.log10` and use that function here? For the second point we need to consider that `toString`...