Roman Khimov

> This NEP considers a transaction as a valid (and temporary) token holder (as HASH256 identifier, not usual HASH160). IIUC this requires changes to NEP-17 and if we're using "transactioned"...

> Does it makes it clearer or more confusing? :joy: Certainly clearer, thanks @igormcoelho. Technically I'd be concerned about these things: * we need either an additional transaction attribute for...

> How can verify() do anything useful, if it cannot access storage during verification (or can it)? :joy: It can.

@igormcoelho, it seems to be too quiet here... Let's warm this up and continue some discussions we've had via e-mail here. I've created #2057 and #2058 to describe NSPCC modifications...

> I didn't see any validation to verify if the candidates are actually online/healthy. It's really hard to do that. What is an online/healthy candidate? We're on a P2P network,...

> If it is offline, maybe we will realize it and vote it out when it becomes a committee member. Proactive monitoring and voting probably still is the best thing...

> premature change view in edge cases. We have exactly this _without_ this change. Nodes that don't receive some messages in this round for any reason start a CV, with...

> I agree with the comments from @lllwvlvwlll regarding NEP numeration. We should just pick the next one in line and avoid surfacing the "optional methods" discussion. :+1: from me....

JSON serialization/deserialization uses different code that converts things into/from stack items and that code is compatible I think. But manifests are converted into appropriate structures and this code uses standard...

"Conflicts" extension can make it possible, #1991.