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
Add ERC: ERC-1155 Permit Approvals #223
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Andrew B Coathup <28278242+abcoathup@users.noreply.github.com>
ERCS/erc-7604.md
Outdated
|
||
The "permit" approval flow for both [ERC-20](./erc-20.md) and [ERC-721](./erc-721.md) are large improvements for the existing UX of the token underlying each ERC. This ERC extends the "permit" pattern to [ERC-1155](./erc-20.md) tokens, borrowing heavily upon both [ERC-4494](./erc-4494.md) and [ERC-2612](./erc-2612.md). | ||
|
||
The structure of [ERC-1155](./erc-1155.md) tokens requires a new ERC to account for the token standard's use of both token IDs and balances (also why this ERC requires [ERC-5216](./erc-5216.md)). An additional field of arbitrary `bytes` is added for extra data to be added to the signatures in the case that the permit function would be extended in some way. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am personally not a fan of the inclusion of an arbitrary bytes data
field.
I feel it's unnecessary and out of scope of the requirements of a permit function - 99.99% of the time it will be a waste of gas (about 350 units).
It's also not present in any other permit standards.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am open to removing this, but I would also like to hear some more feedback on possible usecases, or if it is mostly useless, before making a final decision.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@emiliolanzalaco I think I have removed all the references to the additional bytes data
paramater. Can you give the doc a look over to make sure I didn't miss any?
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
The commit 0133674 (as a parent of 0775bf3) contains errors. |
When opening a pull request to submit a new EIP, please use the suggested template: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/eip-template.md
We have a GitHub bot that automatically merges some PRs. It will merge yours immediately if certain criteria are met: