-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 483
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: Chain-specific addresses using ENS #735
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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.
All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...
ERCS/erc-chain_specific_addresses.md
Outdated
|
||
The resolution of a `address@chain` on the contrary, imposes that the left-hand resolves to an address and the right-hand to a chain identifier. | ||
|
||
When given a `[email protected]`, the wallet can resolve `rollup.eth` to get a chain identifier and `user.rollup.eth` to get an address. In any other case it fails. |
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.
This doesn't require a new syntax: When the wallet is resolving user.rollup.eth
, the standard resolution process should be resolve to resolve the way you described: resolve rollup.eth
to get a chain identifier and user.rollup.eth
to get an address.
This approach also allows user.rollup.eth
to override this behavior by setting a record for their own preferred chain identifier to use when their ENS name is resolved. *.rollup.eth
names will likely never override this, but I'd expect almost every user.eth
to want to receive funds on some chain that isn't L1.
ERCS/erc-chain_specific_addresses.md
Outdated
``` | ||
### Note: default fallbacks | ||
|
||
If a user receives a legacy address without chain name, the wallet can: |
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 don't think any of these fallbacks should be our target behavior. Users should be able to control on which chain assets sent to their ENS name arrive. I think ENS experts should lead the way on this resolution process via an ENSIP.
ERCS/erc-chain_specific_addresses.md
Outdated
account ::= <user>@<chain> | ||
``` | ||
|
||
Note the difference between `ens-name`, which is a full ENS name, and `ens-subdomain` that is just a segment of a name between dots. E.g. `user.app.eth` is a name, `user` and `app` are subdomains. |
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.
In the below examples, isn't the user also just <address> | <ens-name>
?
Co-authored-by: Andrew B Coathup <[email protected]>
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
Co-authored-by: Andrew B Coathup <[email protected]>
The commit d740aa0 (as a parent of 04618e3) contains errors. |
No description provided.