New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ChainID 101 conflict #25

Open
pedrouid opened this Issue Feb 10, 2019 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@pedrouid
Copy link
Collaborator

pedrouid commented Feb 10, 2019

There are two chains with the chain_id 101. We need to remove one of them!

  {
    "name": "Webchain",
    "short_name": "web",
    "chain": "WEB",
    "network": "mainnet",
    "chain_id": 101,
    "network_id": 37129,
    "rpc": []
  },
  {
    "name": "EtherInc",
    "short_name": "web",
    "chain": "WEB",
    "network": "mainnet",
    "chain_id": 101,
    "network_id": 1,
    "rpc": []
  }
@ligi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ligi commented Feb 10, 2019

I do not really want to be the judge of this. Can't there be both?

@ligi ligi removed their assignment Feb 10, 2019

@bmann

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

bmann commented Feb 10, 2019

It’s a really interesting case. I think informing both “owners” and helping them pick an un-used chain IDs is something we can help with.

They don’t have to listen to us of course, but I think it’s the exact sort of thing that’s helpful for us to do.

eg “before picking a ChainID, review ChainID.network and select an unused ChainID”

@pedrouid

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

pedrouid commented Feb 10, 2019

It's no big deal as these two chain look the same, so it could be either a typo or a duplicate entry.

There can only be one chain per chainId as per EIP-155 spec so we need to be the judges of conflicting scenarios like this. This is not the official list of EVM as there will never an official list but it's a trusted signal for listing EVM chains.

I checked and these two chains were part of the same commit: 9acc67d

Hi @hackmod, could you review this chainId conflict and tell us where we could verify if this is a typo, duplicate or something else?

@bmann

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

bmann commented Feb 11, 2019

Great. This is great info for the About page re: EIP-155 and to explain the goal here.

@hackmod

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

hackmod commented Feb 11, 2019

unfortunately, it is not a typo.
Please see kvhnuke/etherwallet#2145

cc: @suryanshkumr @lukaszmatczak @mk

@lukaszmatczak

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

lukaszmatczak commented Feb 11, 2019

I agree that we need to resolve it somehow. But I think that root of this problem is inside EIP-155 specification. I've created issue about it: ethereum/EIPs#1747

We need to wait and see how it will be fixed in specification and then resolve this conflict properly.

BTW. And of course there is a typo in list. EtherInc has "web" as "Short Name" and "Chain".

@ligi ligi added the discussion label Feb 11, 2019

@ligi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ligi commented Feb 11, 2019

BTW. And of course there is a typo in list. EtherInc has "web" as "Short Name" and "Chain".

what should these be instead?

@hackmod

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

hackmod commented Feb 11, 2019

BTW. And of course there is a typo in list. EtherInc has "web" as "Short Name" and "Chain".

what should these be instead?

oops my mistake! that's ETI.

@pedrouid

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

pedrouid commented Feb 11, 2019

Thanks @hackmod! This makes it clearer that they are not the same chain and there is indeed a chainId conflict

  {
    "name": "Webchain",
    "short_name": "web",
    "chain": "WEB",
    "network": "mainnet",
    "chain_id": 101,
    "network_id": 37129,
    "rpc": ["https://node1.webchain.network"]
  },
  {
    "name": "EtherInc",
    "short_name": "eti",
    "chain": "ETI",
    "network": "mainnet",
    "chain_id": 101,
    "network_id": 1,
    "rpc": ["https://api.einc.io/jsonrpc/mainnet"]
  }

Now we need to decide how we handle these and apply process for the future. Given that there is a clear lack of resources on these chainIds.

I propose that we list both conflicting chains and highlight active conflicts on the chainId.network website. This way we have a good signal of these events happening in the future and we can kickstart the process to solve them.

In my opinion, the first chain to use the chainId should not have to change the chainId. Therefore when these conflicts appear we should contact and/or open a Github issue to request the second chain to change their chainId.

In this specific conflict, WebChain should change their chainId since EtherInc had the chainId first as reported by @suryanshkumr on issue webchain-network/webchaind#1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment