Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Multi-class Token Standard #1178

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jun 24, 2018
Merged

Multi-class Token Standard #1178

merged 7 commits into from
Jun 24, 2018

Conversation

albertchon
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@albertchon albertchon changed the title eip-1169 proposal eip-1178 proposal Jun 22, 2018
@albertchon albertchon changed the title eip-1178 proposal eip-1179 proposal Jun 22, 2018
@albertchon albertchon changed the title eip-1179 proposal eip-1178 proposal Jun 22, 2018
@Arachnid Arachnid changed the title eip-1178 proposal Multi-lcass Token Standard Jun 24, 2018
@Arachnid Arachnid merged commit 5ff1003 into ethereum:master Jun 24, 2018
@albertchon albertchon changed the title Multi-lcass Token Standard Multi-class Token Standard Jun 24, 2018
@xinbenlv xinbenlv mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2018
Closed
Arachnid pushed a commit to Arachnid/EIPs that referenced this pull request Jul 19, 2018
@Arachnid
Multi-lcass Token Standard (ethereum#1178)
ffcbc88 
* eip-1169

* added standard

* Update and rename eip-1169.md to eip-1179.md

* Update eip-1179.md

* name change

* Update eip-1178.md

* Update eip-1178.md
@PhABC
Copy link
Contributor

PhABC commented Jul 27, 2018

Hello!

This sounds very similar to #1155 and #888 as well. Would it be possible for you to chime in there so we can all collaborate on a single standard?

@albertchon
Copy link
Contributor Author

@PhABC I think the #1155 introduces unnecessary complexity for those who only want to use multi-class tokens.

@PhABC
Copy link
Contributor

PhABC commented Jul 27, 2018

Perhaps, but the implementation interface is practically identical in its intent. Some projects have given meaning to their ERC-721 IDs while still being compliant to ERC-721 standard. I agree that I believe most projects will not want to have the complexity proposed by #1155, but having the same interface would make everyone's life much easier.

@albertchon
Copy link
Contributor Author

@PhABC from a developer standpoint and given the fact that smart contracts are meant to be inspected by the public before usage, getting rid of unnecessary complexity is desired. So, in the case where NFTs are not being used in an 1155 contract, I don't see who's lives would be made easier.

Also, there is a discussion section for this EIP. I suggest posting any additional concerns you may have there so the community can weigh in, as opposed to commenting on this pull request that is hard to find.

This was referenced Jul 28, 2018
Closed
Closed
@aquiladev aquiladev mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2018
Closed
This was referenced Dec 2, 2018
Closed
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Arachnid Arachnid Arachnid approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@albertchon @PhABC @Arachnid