Igor Artamonov

@elaineo only from account. it's a change to a serialization format of a transaction. an it doesn't affect contract excution

@dulanov transactions are serialized into RLP, which already supports arrays. Currently it's `[nonce, gasPrice, gasLimit, to, value, data, v, r, s]` we add an additional structure `[nonce, gasPrice, [[gasLimit, to,...

@avtarsehra it touches only transaction serialization in blockchain and p2p, so it shouldn't affect existing contracts Regarding "From" fields. That's interesting moment, if we allow to have different From per...

@Dexaran exchange was just a particular problem we have discussed recently, so i've added it as an example. This ECIP not for Exchanges, it can be used in many different...

@Dexaran the advantage that you don't need to deploy a contract for such one-time execution (gas economy, data efficiency and simplicity). When user need to execute same series of operations...

My use case was some kind of "optimistic locking" contract, when _group of users_ have a shared contract, and they are safe to execute their own independent operations with using...

"locking" can be executed with a new contract too, actually nearly everything can be implemented as a smart contract. But it seems to be a common pattern of execution, it...

@Dexaran yes, maybe it's useful for contract to know if it's executed from joint transactions, but I didn't have any plans to add a new OP for that. can be...

@nmushegian right, you can always write a contract, if you need that more than once. This is proposed for **one-time execution**, for an arbitrary series of calls. Deploy a contract,...

Smart contract are much more powerful technology, it includes "atomicity" and any other logic a developer would implement in it, and this proposal doesn't replace smart contracts. I proposing this...