Add EIP-1283 and EIP-1706 to proposed EIP list for Istanbul

[sorpaas]

Related Cat Herders issue (hope I get this right): ethcatherders/PM#69

[eip-automerger]

Hi! I'm a bot, and I wanted to automerge your PR, but couldn't because of the following issue(s):

• EIP 1679 requires approval from one of (@5chdn, @axic)

[axic]

Merging these means they are up for discussion, but there needs to be a champion to them, otherwise unlikely they're going to be considered.

[sorpaas]

@axic What do you mean we don't have a champion? 😃 I think the person who submitted the PR automatically becomes it, right? Or are there other special procedures to sign up for champions?

[axic]

I think the person who submitted the PR automatically becomes it, right?

Yes, as long as the person is still interested 😉

Since 1283 was written by you, you are definitely interested in pursuing it, but 1706 wasn't and if the original authors won't push it, I don't think anything will happen despite being on this list.

[sorpaas]

@axic I don't think it matters in that case. 1283 now must be discussed in the context of either 1702 or 1706 (i.e. we either enables account versioning, or we directly fix what stopped us last time). So one champion will be enough.

[axic]

@sorpaas the question is: are you pushing for 1706 or do you expect its original authors to take that part?

[sorpaas]

@axic If you read my previous comment, I think it's clear the answer to your first question is yes. It is definitely a good bonus get the original authors to involved as well, but as 1706 is simple enough I don't see that as road-blocker. :)

[jochem-brouwer]

@sorpaas @axic I think it is confusing (after reading @sorpaas comments) that EIP 1283 is still on the proposed EIP list of Istanbul (EIP 1679). To a reader it looks like someone (not necessarily the proposer of 1706) wants to pursue the EIP which enables re-entrancy and after reading the comments by @sorpaas I think that they want to pursue 1706 in the end. So I would propose that EIP 1283 gets removed from the EIP 1679 proposed EIP list for Istanbul.

[sorpaas]

@jochem-brouwer Who is this “someone”? :) If you want to imply I’m being malicious, please just say it. Otherwise you’re creating an unhealthy environment for everyone.

What you said is logically not true. First, removing an EIP that EIP-1706 depends on only creates confusion. Second, there’re multiple ways to fix the EIP-1283 re-entry issue. If you read my previous comments, you’ll find that EIP-1706 is only one of them. Another really option is through account versioning EIP-1702 (which you can also find on the proposed EIP list). Account versioning is a dependency for EIP-651. So it rather makes this option quite attractive.

[jochem-brouwer]

@sorpaas I think my comment was written badly - I do not think you are acting maliciously. With "someone" I meant someone who would read EIP 1679. I think it is generally accepted that EIP 1283 as-is will not be implemented on the chain, while a fix such as 1706 might get implemented. To me it looks confusing because by just reading EIP 1679 it looks like 1283 as-is might get implemented. It is much clearer, to me, if you read 1706 and then see this is basically a fix of 1283. This is just my view from someone who would read EIP 1679, I am only trying to make "understanding" EIP 1679 or evaluating it easier ;)

EDIT: I think we might see the difference between 1283 and 1706 differently. I see 1706 as a standalone EIP - but it can also be seen as an upgrade of EIP 1283. Hence you could, theoretically, first fork the chain to deploy 1283 and then in another fork build 1706 on top of 1283. In that case I agree that both should be put in the proposed EIPs list. In the case of 1702, which also needs 651, this hence means that for 1702 BOTH should be accepted in the fork, cause you cannot deploy 1702 without 651 (as 1702 requires account versioning). This might have caused my confusion.