Add meta EIP for hard forks

[axic]

No description provided.

[axic]

Probably worth mentioning that it is a not a blocker for the activation to have an outdated Yellowpaper - if we follow the practice of today.

[gavofyork]

Depends if this is to be prescriptive or proscriptive. If the latter, then I would propose EIPs should be formalised as Yellow Paper revisions prior to implementation. This would help avoid the subtle consensus issues stemming from the informal nature of EIPs.

[Arachnid]

Please renumber this as eip-233 and we can merge it as a draft.

[axic]

@Arachnid this has been updated in April :)

[axic]

@cdetrio is there anything to be added to this description to match how the meta EIPs are updated?

[Arachnid]

This is a courtesy notice to let you know that the format for EIPs has been modified slightly. If you want your draft merged, you will need to make some small changes to how your EIP is formatted:

• Frontmatter is now contained between lines with only a triple dash ('---')
• Headers in the frontmatter are now lowercase.

If your PR is editing an existing EIP rather than creating a new one, this has already been done for you, and you need only rebase your PR.

In addition, a continuous build has been setup, which will check your PR against the rules for EIP formatting automatically once you update your PR. This build ensures all required headers are present, as well as performing a number of other checks.

Please rebase your PR against the latest master, and edit your PR to use the above format for frontmatter. For convenience, here's a sample header you can copy and adapt:

---
eip: <num>
title: <title>
author: <author>
type: [Standards Track|Informational|Meta]
category: [Core|Networking|Interface|ERC] (for type: Standards Track only)
status: Draft
created: <date>
---

[axic]

@Arachnid @Souptacular Updated to reflect changes over the last year. I think this is OK to be merged as a draft now.

[axic]

@Arachnid @Souptacular please advise what to do with this EIP