Merge pull request #3 from zscole/patch-3

Update eip-6968.md

EIPS/eip-6968.md

@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@ eip: 6968
 title: Contract Secured Revenue on an EVM based L2
 status: Draft
 type: Core
-discussions-to: https://t.me/+w1EKtAx824VlZDJh
-author: Zak Cole <zak@numbergroup.xyz>, Kevin Owocki <kevin@supermodular.xyz>
+discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-6968-generalized-csr-protocol/14178
+author: Zak Cole <zak@numbergroup.xyz>, Kevin Owocki <kevin@supermodular.xyz>, Lighclient <matt@ethereum.org>
 created: 2023-05-01
 ---
 
@@ -15,17 +15,6 @@ Contract Secured Revenue (CSR) allows smart contract developers to claim a perce
 This EIP proposes the introduction of CSR on EVM-based L2s. If adopted, this would allow smart contract developers who deploy on L2s to access a potentially lucrative revenue stream and/or fund public goods.
 
 ## Motivation
-
-<!--
-  This section is optional.
-
-  The motivation section should include a description of any nontrivial problems the EIP solves. It should not describe how the EIP solves those problems, unless it is not immediately obvious. It should not describe why the EIP should be made into a standard, unless it is not immediately obvious.
-
-  With a few exceptions, external links are not allowed. If you feel that a particular resource would demonstrate a compelling case for your EIP, then save it as a printer-friendly PDF, put it in the assets folder, and link to that copy.
-
-  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
--->
-
 Using protocol rewards of an L1 to fund smart contract development would be a big change to the way the current market works.  This EIP *does not* advocate for any changes to the existing Ethereum L1.
 
 This EIP does advocate that L2s could begin to experiment with Contract Secured Revenue as a means of
@@ -37,7 +26,6 @@ We acknowledge the potential downsides/risks of CSR.
 1. It could [become just a race to the bottom devolving into rebates for users](https://twitter.com/trent_vanepps/status/1623361559983452160)
 2. It has [yet to be proven that it can sustainable attract/retain/comp devs](https://twitter.com/trent_vanepps/status/1653086558633836564)
 
-
 ## Specification
 
 ### Parameters
@@ -113,56 +101,10 @@ some random thoughts from matt garnett
 * maybe one other option, similar to the first, let each contract specify a recipient address for the fees. some can send to an owner, others can burn the other, and other still could redistributed to users / token holders
 * more generally, this mechanism is going to cause devs to deploy all their contracts themselves so they can set the recipient themselves, defeating the value of library contracts. this is probably alright
 
-## Backwards Compatibility
-
-<!--
-
-  This section is optional.
-
-  All EIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. EIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
-
-  The current placeholder is acceptable for a draft.
-
-  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
--->
-
-No backward compatibility issues found.
-
-## Test Cases
-
-<!--
-  This section is optional for non-Core EIPs.
-
-  The Test Cases section should include expected input/output pairs, but may include a succinct set of executable tests. It should not include project build files. No new requirements may be be introduced here (meaning an implementation following only the Specification section should pass all tests here.)
-  If the test suite is too large to reasonably be included inline, then consider adding it as one or more files in `../assets/eip-####/`. External links will not be allowed
-
-  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
--->
-
-## Reference Implementation
-
-<!--
-  This section is optional.
-
-  The Reference Implementation section should include a minimal implementation that assists in understanding or implementing this specification. It should not include project build files. The reference implementation is not a replacement for the Specification section, and the proposal should still be understandable without it.
-  If the reference implementation is too large to reasonably be included inline, then consider adding it as one or more files in `../assets/eip-####/`. External links will not be allowed.
-
-  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
--->
-
-TODO Zak
-
 ## Security Considerations
+###  Increased Max Block Size/Complexity
+Similar to EIP-1559, we must consider the effects this will have on block size. Depending on the method by which this is implemented, it could increase maximum block size in the event that a significant number of contracts opt-in to CSR. 
 
-<!--
-  All EIPs must contain a section that discusses the security implications/considerations relevant to the proposed change. Include information that might be important for security discussions, surfaces risks and can be used throughout the life cycle of the proposal. For example, include security-relevant design decisions, concerns, important discussions, implementation-specific guidance and pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks and how they are being addressed. EIP submissions missing the "Security Considerations" section will be rejected. An EIP cannot proceed to status "Final" without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.
-
-  The current placeholder is acceptable for a draft.
-
-  TODO: Remove this comment before submitting
--->
-
-TODO Zak
 
 ## Copyright