Skip to content
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

EIP-3074 Implementation #38

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

EIP-3074 Implementation #38

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

adietrichs
Copy link

@adietrichs adietrichs commented Mar 8, 2021

Draft PR for an EIP-3074 implementation. WIP.

@lightclient lightclient force-pushed the eip-3074 branch 2 times, most recently from 7a357f3 to 49c6963 Compare August 14, 2021 20:00
Co-authored-by: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ansgar Dietrichs <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <[email protected]>
@cyrusadkisson
Copy link

Hi. I'm an app/solidity dev but have an interest in 3074 implementations due to a technical quirk of a contract I deployed in 2015.

I'm keen to see the following in 3074 evm client implementations:
https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-3074-auth-and-authcall-opcodes/4880/103

TL;DR - I think it makes the most sense, in an AUTHCALL, for tx.origin to be set to the address of the account being remote-controlled, not the account initializing the transaction (i.e. paying the gas) as it is, in spirit, the remote-controlled address performing the action.

I'm way out of my depth with your code, so a question: how does your implementation handle tx.origin?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants