jxom

> because upstream viem doesn't have have some optimism specific functionality. Feel free to create PRs to Viem. :)

Thanks for the PR! It looks great, however we are not planning to add Tor support to Viem just yet as this would introduce an extra dependency to our supply...

I might close this PR for now as the type-system should pick up these issues, and extraneous attributes don't lead to incorrect hashes.

Would it be a good idea to align the API to [`PaymentRequest#details`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/PaymentRequest/PaymentRequest#details)? There are some properties in there which may be nice for this API too.

> What does this mean, concretely? It means exposing the interface (and possibly a lot of the [spec](https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-request/) itself!) to Wallets, and not _just_ Browsers. Deduping and not reinventing too...

No, I purely mean just aligning the interface that can be used in the `wallet_pay` JSON-RPC request (utilizing 6963 😉).

> To start, I agree this makes the most sense. You're going to hate me here though... but I want to expose this only with the https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CAIPs/pull/282/ It's good that...

> Additionally, EIP-5792 is a low level RPC call that presumes a DApp has requested access to the account address and will format the transaction. This takes a different approach...

> @paulmillr yeah good point. and i just realized that viem is actually bigger than i imagined https://bundlephobia.com/package/[email protected] Bundlephobia is a very bad source for measuring bundle size. It doesn't...