Marcus R. Brown

The pros of this algorithm are pretty straightforward: - No increase in transaction size - Simple signing and verification mechanism - Replay prevention against incompatible chains (e.g. ETH) However it...

@avtarsehra and I are discussing this on Slack. We'll update this thread in a bit.

> Also I initially thought that a flaw in this approach is that delayed transactions would become invalid if they are delayed longer than the required validation period. But maybe...

Ok, I think we are almost there :) I've pointed out the two issues I have with the dynamic variable, the first being "slippage" during the epoch, the second being...

Would you be OK with going forward with client implementation using the most recent block hash? That value is trivially accessible. If you come up with another solution for the...

> light clients and hardware wallets shouldn't be affected by the change as block header hash can be 0 if the dynamic variable is used. All clients are affected. Hashing...

@realcodywburns I definitely think we should issue this as an EIP, but I would want @avtarsehra to sign off on it first. @elaineo Understood.

Give me the permissions needed to do the rename in both organizations and I'll take care of the move and the rename. The move and rename would take an hour...

I've taken the step of reassigning permissions into consideration. I didn't think about any GitHub pages, thanks. I move my estimate to two hours to cover anything else like that.

@splix We had a lot of developers pushing for it on Slack, so we moved the discussion here to facilitate more discussion. We aren't planning to do anything until a...