ERC: Account Abstraction via Entry Point Contract specification

[vbuterin]

An account abstraction proposal which completely avoids the need for consensus-layer protocol changes, instead relying on a separate mempool of UserOperation objects and miners either running custom code or connecting to a bundle marketplace.

[luziusmeisser]

Nice work!

It would be nice to allow out-of-order execution of transactions, which could be done by creating a wallet with a more elaborate nonce than just an integer. Here's an example of a Nonce implementation that stores the actual nonce (a 128-bit number) and a bitregister (of 128 bits) in the same uint256 in order to support out-of-order execution of up to 100 or so transactions:

https://github.com/aktionariat/contracts/blob/master/src/Nonce.sol

[lightclient]

Left a few comments - the Security Considerations and Copyright sections are missing currently. Thanks!

[MicahZoltu]

I'm trying to stay out of ERCs... but since I happened to read this one:
This appears to be missing some required sections. See https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ethereum/EIPs/master/eip-template.md for the list of required/optional sections (backward compatibility, security considerations, copyright).

[eth-bot]

EIP file name must be eip-###.md

[MicahZoltu]

- ./_site/EIPS/eip-4337.html
  *  linking to internal hash #Reputation-scoring-and-throttlingbanning-for-paymasters that does not exist (line 299)
     <a href="#Reputation-scoring-and-throttlingbanning-for-paymasters">reputation, throttling and banning section</a>
  *  linking to internal hash #Simulation that does not exist (line 281)
     <a href="#Simulation">Simulation section below</a>

eip-4337.md:	trailing whitespace

The latter is referring to one of the lines in the frontmatter.

[timelinefunds]

Agree with consensus. Looks good to me. Green light.

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 05:43, Micah Zoltu ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In EIPS/eip-4337.md <#4337 (comment)>: > @@ -0,0 +1,331 @@ +--- +eip: 4337 +title: Account Abstraction via Entry Point Contract specification +description: An account abstraction proposal which completely avoids consensus-layer protocol changes, instead relying on higher-layer infrastructure. +author: Vitalik Buterin ***@***.***), Yoav Weiss ***@***.***), Kristof Gazso ***@***.***), Namra Patel ***@***.***), Dror Tirosh ***@***.***) ⬇️ Suggested change -author: Vitalik Buterin ***@***.***), Yoav Weiss ***@***.***), Kristof Gazso ***@***.***), Namra Patel ***@***.***), Dror Tirosh ***@***.***) + author: Vitalik Buterin ***@***.***), Yoav Weiss ***@***.***), Kristof Gazso ***@***.***), Namra Patel ***@***.***), Dror Tirosh ***@***.***) — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4337 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALPDOTO5PQEPUZFU2O5RBDUFEWH5ANCNFSM5E7KWLYQ> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.

-- Sent from iPhone

[MicahZoltu]

@alita-moore Any idea why CI is failing on this? This is the error, but the file name appears to correctly match the desired pattern.

Error: EIP file name must be eip-###.md

[alita-moore]

@alita-moore Any idea why CI is failing on this? This is the error, but the file name appears to correctly match the desired pattern.

Error: EIP file name must be eip-###.md

It's likely just because it also touches assets which is not supported. Even still it should be giving a much more detailed report so I'll look into that.

[MicahZoltu]

Gah, that was my bad. I didn't see the asset files in the list. I think we already have a ticket for allowing asset changes for an EIP being allowed under the same rules as changing an EIP.

[lightclient]

@MicahZoltu do you mind merging? I don't have admin access to override the bot. Ty.

[dfixx]

cool!!!

[Gonzalez1988]

¡Buen trabajo!

Sería bueno permitir la ejecución fuera de orden de transacciones, lo que podría hacerse mediante la creación de una billetera con un nonce más elaborado que un simple entero. Aquí hay un ejemplo de una implementación de Nonce que almacena el nonce real (un número de 128 bits) y un bitregister (de 128 bits) en el mismo uint256 para admitir la ejecución fuera de orden de hasta 100 transacciones aproximadamente:

https://github.com/aktionariat/contracts/blob/master/src/Nonce.sol

vbuterin-patch-1