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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Update EIP-7377: Fix some nits #7419

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 27, 2023
Merged

Update EIP-7377: Fix some nits #7419

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
27712c3
Fix some nits in EIP-7377
jtraglia Jul 27, 2023
9c94461
Delete duplicate word
jtraglia Jul 27, 2023
28f2871
Replace MigrationTransaction with ordinary text
jtraglia Jul 27, 2023
f4315cc
Delete unnecessary comma
jtraglia Jul 27, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
16 changes: 8 additions & 8 deletions EIPS/eip-7377.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -21,9 +21,9 @@ Smart contract wallets have long been touted as the solution to Ethereum's user

Today, account abstraction is still an important goal in Ethereum and there are many efforts attempting to realize it. We're getting closer to succeeding at this, but unfortunately the years of failure have caused many users to simply rely on EOA.

After a user as accumulated enough assets in an EOA, it is not tenable to migrate each individual asset to a new address. This is due both to the cost and to needing to manually sign and verify potentially hundreds of transactions.
After a user has accumulated enough assets in an EOA, it is not tenable to migrate each individual asset to a new address. This is due both to the cost and to needing to manually sign and verify potentially hundreds of transactions.

This is an overlooked piece of the problem. Converting *existing* users to smart contract wallets efficiently, will expedite adoption and push forward better support and integrations for smart contract wallets. They will no longer be dismissed as a niche use case.
This is an overlooked piece of the problem. Converting *existing* users to smart contract wallets efficiently will expedite adoption and push forward better support and integrations for smart contract wallets. They will no longer be dismissed as a niche use case.

Therefore, we must provide a mechanism, embedded in the protocol, to migrate EOAs to smart contracts. This EIP proposes such mechanism.

Expand All @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ At the fork block `X`, introduce the migration transaction type.
| `maxFeePerGas` | `int256` |
| `maxPriorityFeePerGas` | `int256` |
| `gasLimit` | `uint64` |
| `codeAddr` | `address` |
| `codeAddr` | `address` |
| `storage` | `List[Tuple[uint256, uint256]]` |
| `data` | `bytes` |
| `value` | `int256` |
Expand All @@ -51,9 +51,9 @@ At the fork block `X`, introduce the migration transaction type.
| `r` | `uint256` |
| `s` | `uint256` |

The EIP-2718 `TransactionType` is `0x04` and the `TransactionPayload` is `rlp([chainId, nonce, maxFeePerGas, maxPriorityFeePerGas, gasLimit, codeAddr, storageTuples, data, value, accessList, yParity, r, s])`.
The EIP-2718 `TransactionType` is `0x04` and the `TransactionPayload` is `rlp([chainId, nonce, maxFeePerGas, maxPriorityFeePerGas, gasLimit, codeAddr, storage, data, value, accessList, yParity, r, s])`.

The transaction's signature hash is `keccak256(0x04 || rlp([chainId, nonce, maxFeePerGas, maxPriorityFeePerGas, gasLimit, codeAddr, storageTuples, data, value, accessList])`
The transaction's signature hash is `keccak256(0x04 || rlp([chainId, nonce, maxFeePerGas, maxPriorityFeePerGas, gasLimit, codeAddr, storage, data, value, accessList])`

#### Validation

Expand All @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ The intrinsic gas calculation modified from [EIP-1559](./eip-1559.md) to be `210

#### Processing

Executing a migration transaction transaction has two parts.
Executing a migration transaction has two parts.

##### Contract Deployment

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ Additionally, the EOA already exists because it has enough balance for the migra

### Manipulating transaction origin

Many applications have a security check `caller == origin` to verify the caller is an EOA. This is done to "protect" assets. While it is usually more of a bandage than an actual fix, we attempt to placate these projects by modifying the origin of the transaction so the check will continue performing it's duty.
Many applications have a security check `caller == origin` to verify the caller is an EOA. This is done to "protect" assets. While it is usually more of a bandage than an actual fix, we attempt to placate these projects by modifying the origin of the transaction so the check will continue performing its duty.

### One-time migration

Expand All @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ No backward compatibility issues found.

## Security Considerations

As with all sufficiently sophisticated account designs, if a user can be convinced to sign an arbitrary message, that message could be MigrationTransaction which is owned by a malicious actor instead of the user. This can generally be avoided if wallets treat these transactions with *extreme* care and create as much friction and verification as possible before completing the signature.
As with all sufficiently sophisticated account designs, if a user can be convinced to sign an arbitrary message, that message could be a migration transaction which is owned by a malicious actor instead of the user. This can generally be avoided if wallets treat these transactions with *extreme* care and create as much friction and verification as possible before completing the signature.

## Copyright

Expand Down