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.

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

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

@albertchon albertchon commented Jun 22, 2018

No description provided.

albertchon added 2 commits Jun 22, 2018
@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
albertchon added 4 commits 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
1 check passed
1 check passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@albertchon albertchon changed the title Multi-lcass Token Standard Multi-class Token Standard Jun 24, 2018
Arachnid added a commit to Arachnid/EIPs that referenced this pull request Jul 19, 2018
* 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 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

@albertchon albertchon commented Jul 27, 2018

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

@PhABC
Copy link
Contributor

@PhABC 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

@albertchon albertchon commented Jul 27, 2018

@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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.