Closed aslesarenko closed 4 years ago
I think the easiest and more principled way of storing, distributing and signing the WKCs is using the blockchain itself. Will investigate this ASAP then.
Renamed the EIP to focus on Data Format part of the problem. Activation is thus out of scope and deserve it's own EIP. Will edit the text to cover Format-only scope.
@greenhat @robkorn Thanks for suggestions. Originally I also thought that the activation of new contracts should be somehow part of the protocol. However from standardization point of view I see here two different aspects, one is data formats and another is activation protocol.
Having separate and more focused EIPs will make them easier to support by tooling and apps. So this EIP6 should be renamed to EIP-0006: Well-known Contracts Format and focus solely on data format part of the protocol.
The format should be self-sufficient, so that all software (including nodes, tools, apps etc) will be able to validate the consistency of the contracts they deal with and unambiguously interpret the content of the data. And the tools are not created equal, some of them don't care about activation (such as contract compilation/preparation tools).
The question of how to store the WKCs on the network node is completely their implementation choice. However, I agree, the question of whether a contract "can be used" or "not yet" should be guided by some activation protocol. This can be a separate EIP7: Well-known Contracts Activation, which I feel have to be clarified before this EIP can be finalized and accepted. So I would keep this PR unchanged and I'd rather switch to EIP7 and clarify it first.