EIP standards Process - 2:30pm saturday july '18


The notes were much better organized, with nested hierarchy in: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-wK7HHeupaDrRjZmeWRkzvxgEdnCGCqBhRvGAUnUu7w/edit?usp=sharing

Open questions and comments from the crowd:

  • Need for documentation
  • who has the authority?
  • LIP process for livepeer, what are the challenges that exist with EIPs? Scaling challenges? Improving signal vs noise.
  • Splitting protocol and application layer process
  • Splitting into standardization working groups
  • Scuttlebutt p2p community has no formalized process, how do we go from standard to implementation, while staying decentralized
  • How do eips decrease duplication and effort, background, how much is explicitly documented?
  • PIP wants to learn from it, plasma has things that can be added to the EIP list… what makes a good EIP?
  • Layer2 proposals
  • QIP is excited to model after EIPs… trying to be a non-org and develop a culture of the experts, to allow more people to participate.
  • Coordination scaling, social scaling, setting processes in place that have scaling in mind. How have other projects succeeded and failed?
  • IDEAS! HA! Adapted for execution. There is work that we do that could be moved upstream to EIPs, but we aren’t confident with our works

Organized notes:

Separating the EIP process into different pieces

  • Core things go to core devs
  • Python vs IETF
  • Interface RPC, contract layer, Consensus layer
  • Consensus should require pull requests to the Yellow Paper.
  • Applications should have working groups
  • Interfaces (JSON RPC) get a lot less press and
  • LAST CALL ends the process

Modeling other processes

  • Layer 2 (and other working groups) heading upstream to get their needs out of layer 1
  • For example, having chain introspection
  • Where do we draw the line?
  • We could have a nice light weight process that include working groups
  • Application layer standards often don’t need changes up streams but they piggy back off the EIP standard
  • HTTP is only a meaningful standard if people choose to use it… but its still useful to use it
  • 721 was funny, cryptokitties have a shitty standard, and then the first project deploys it with a shitty standard and the original thinkers lose their credibility in pushing the standard discussion
  • Token standards in NFTs… there is an army of people trying to standardize tokens
  • What happens when other languages come into the mix?
  • Standards use the ABI not the language.
  • We should focus on standardizing what happens on chain for data availability, then do libraries
  • There is an ODB layer, then there is the applications
  • The databases here are contracts
  • The crypto items standard 1155
  • different tokens of different types and making them all easy to group and move

Defining what makes something EIP-able

  • This is something that was better defined in the BIP process.
  • The process for contracts is different then the process for core protocol changes
  • RPC interface would be nice to standardize
  • Debug trace transaction gives you back different
  • Ethsign, private sign, both work different ways in different clients
  • Standards are really focusing on documentation
  • Does it need to come out of working groups?

Social scalability

  • Putting out requirements is really important and it should be part of the process upfront
  • Using the fellowship group to standardize might help
  • Token Working group, ScalingNOW! Etc.
  • Authoritative groups that have smaller scopes
  • Creating Working groups will help the process
  • Only the people that care need to watch
  • Helps organize processes around each unique groups needs
  • Editors need to certify the working group
  • Working groups can be forked
  • Everyone can follow a unique standards process
  • So you have working group last call, then you push to the editors who do the EIP last call
  • Editors become certification agencies for working groups???
  • It would be nice if working groups that are can be pointed to as the authority as types of standards
  • These are the editors
  • Greg Colvin
  • Nick Johnson (@arachnid)
  • Casey Detrio (@cdetrio)
  • Hudson Jameson (@Souptacular)
  • Vitalik Buterin (@vbuterin)
  • Nick Savers (@nicksavers)
  • Martin Becze (@wanderer)
  • How do we form working groups?
  • What are the minimum requirements?
  • No standards, but some structure would be nice
  • Working groups earn their authority and legitimacy.
  • People can circumvent it but if the important stakeholders are listening to a specific working group it will be hard for them to get their standards
  • Working groups can interrupt the final call if someone does circumvent them… you have this filibusters
  • TCR ? Signalling?
  • Experts make people shy
  • IETF is hierarchical … but can we push things out?
  • It’s important that Everyone can follow a standards process
  • There is a website !?!!? https://eips.ethereum.org/
  • EIP-1 https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1
  • SHOULD THINGS BE CURATED? NICK (curation) VS BORIS (accept all correctly formatted eips)?


I can’t believe I agreed to a BLOG OFF…

CoinDesk article about "stuck ether", and efforts to unstuck the process

hahahaha! Good luck! and sorry for the break in chatham house rules wanted to have accountability for that one ;-D


We were a little loose on that (that @mattlock guy kept taking pictures!). But I think the non-digital room was good.

Good luck with your leg! But I see it is resulting in great note uploading so…


hahahah it delayed the notes uploading honestly. finally getting back into the swing of things


hi griff, can u expand on what u mean in these points (they are most critical and would help going forward):

  • 721 was funny, cryptokitties have a shitty standard, and then the first project deploys it with a shitty standard and the original thinkers lose their credibility in pushing the standard discussion
  • Token standards in NFTs… there is an army of people trying to standardize tokens


P.S. ello