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

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@achon22
Contributor

achon22 commented Jun 22, 2018

No description provided.

achon22 added some commits Jun 22, 2018

@achon22 achon22 changed the title from eip-1169 proposal to eip-1178 proposal Jun 22, 2018

@achon22 achon22 changed the title from eip-1178 proposal to eip-1179 proposal Jun 22, 2018

@achon22 achon22 changed the title from eip-1179 proposal to eip-1178 proposal Jun 22, 2018

achon22 added some commits Jun 22, 2018

@Arachnid Arachnid changed the title from eip-1178 proposal to Multi-lcass Token Standard Jun 24, 2018

@Arachnid Arachnid merged commit 5ff1003 into ethereum:master Jun 24, 2018

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@achon22 achon22 changed the title from Multi-lcass Token Standard to Multi-class Token Standard Jun 24, 2018

johnhforrest added a commit to codex-protocol/EIPs that referenced this pull request Jul 10, 2018

Multi-lcass Token Standard (ethereum#1178)
* 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

Arachnid added a commit to Arachnid/EIPs that referenced this pull request Jul 19, 2018

Multi-lcass Token Standard (ethereum#1178)
* 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

This comment has been minimized.

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?

@achon22

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

achon22 commented Jul 27, 2018

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

@PhABC

This comment has been minimized.

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.

@achon22

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

achon22 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