EIP-7702: Set EOA account code

EIPs EIPs core
6
  1. Should the contract_code signature also sign over the account’s nonce?

I personally felt like this was a nice feature of 3074 as it adds a “get out of jail free” card to invalidate all 7702 signatures. This can mostly be helpful in cases where the signed code has a bug and doesn’t provide functionality for disabling the code.

  1. Should the contract_code instead be an address? This would save calldata, though only a little bit of calldata because ERC-1167 proxies only take 44 bytes.

I think if the signature is over a contract address, then you would have to also sign over a chain ID. Personally, I slightly lean towards signing code as it could allow chain ID agnostic signatures (although whether or not that is a good idea, I don’t know yet) especially given min-proxies are quite small and comparable in size to an address.

  1. Should SSTORE inside the “temporarily contract-ified EOAs” be prohibited, like it is in EIP-5806?

It could also behave like TSTORE (in that it gets removed at the end of the transaction along with the code). But if it does behave like TSTORE, then it isn’t really any benefit to allowing SSTORE (besides maybe allowing for simpler execution code)

1 Like