-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 533
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: Public Cross Port #62
Conversation
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
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. |
8790b42
to
4f3d0e1
Compare
try change erc-7533 to eip-7533
The commit a2c3045 (as a parent of 5bc9997) contains errors. |
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 is looking good so far!
My last large bit of feedback is that you should move the description of how the interfaces are supposed to be used (the "Add cross-chain message", "Pull roots & Set roots", and "Verify cross-chain message" sections) into the Specification section.
The Specification section alone should give the reader enough information to implement/use your proposal. The Rationale section is there to give your reasoning behind why you made certain choices within the proposal.
For example, this paragraph:
Upon the completion of packing a new MerkleTree, the package carrier (usually the cross-chain bridge project) pulls the root from multiple chains and stores it in the
IReceivePort
contract of each chain. It is important to note that the traditional approach involves using a push method, as depicted in the following diagram:
Is describing what the package carrier is supposed to be doing. That kind of content belongs in Specification.
Conversely, this paragraph is a great example of something that should stay in Rationale:
The MerkleTree data structure efficiently compresses the size of cross-chain messages. Regardless of the number of cross-chain messages, they can be compressed into a single root, represented as a byte32 value. The package carrier only needs to transport the root, resulting in low gas cost.
|
||
This EIP does not change the consensus layer, so there are no backwards compatibility issues for Ethereum as a whole. | ||
|
||
This EIP does not change other ERC standars, so there are no backwards compatibility issues for Ethereum applications. |
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 EIP does not change other ERC standars, so there are no backwards compatibility issues for Ethereum applications. | |
This EIP does not change other ERC standards, so there are no backwards compatibility issues for Ethereum applications. |
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 is still showing as standars
for me, which isn't a word.
--- | ||
eip: 7533 | ||
title: Public Cross Port | ||
description: Help bridges to connect all EVM chains |
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.
What do you think of:
description: Help bridges to connect all EVM chains | |
description: Pull-based messaging for cross chain communication |
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'm still not sure the current description is descriptive enough. What differentiates this proposal from other bridges? What makes Public Cross Ports special?
Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com>
It's not specification, but developers need to know the security suggestions
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.
Looks acceptable for a draft. Please fix the typo and expand your description at your leisure.
--- | ||
eip: 7533 | ||
title: Public Cross Port | ||
description: Help bridges to connect all EVM chains |
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'm still not sure the current description is descriptive enough. What differentiates this proposal from other bridges? What makes Public Cross Ports special?
|
||
This EIP does not change the consensus layer, so there are no backwards compatibility issues for Ethereum as a whole. | ||
|
||
This EIP does not change other ERC standars, so there are no backwards compatibility issues for Ethereum applications. |
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 is still showing as standars
for me, which isn't a word.
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...
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: