►
From YouTube: EIP Editing Office Hour 11
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/207
A
A
B
All
right,
hey
thanks
for
coming
out.
Do
you
have
any
specific
questions
for
this,
or
is
it
you
just
want
somebody
to
look
at
it.
D
B
B
It
is
short
which
is
good,
I
I
might
add
a
little
bit
about
like
how
like
our
let's
see,
so
they
are
just
okay,
so
the
emotes
aren't
actually
stored
as
another
nft
they're
they're,
just
a
property,
interesting,
okay,.
B
Okay,
that
seems
very
reasonable.
This
I
think
has
the
wrong
EIP
number.
C
No
that's
another
VIP.
We
worked
on
we'll
fix
thanks.
B
Okay,
let's
see
triple
tokens,
extends
deep
721,
so
you
could
make
it
a
bit
more
General.
If
you
also
supported
1155,
it's
not
a
requirement,
obviously,
but
it
might
be
nice
to
think
about,
because
a
lot
of
newer
nfts
are
using
that
standard.
C
B
C
I,
don't
think
if
there's
any
issue
supporting
it,
but
it's
just
not
required,
but
so
how
should
we
approach
this
like?
Where
would
you.
B
Should
so
you
could
say
something
like
the
emotive
Ascension
extension
for
non-fungible
tokens
extends
standard,
non-fungible
token
contracts
like
your
eip721
EIP
1155,
by
allowing
nfts
to
be
demoted
at
and
then
it
would.
They
have
different
interfaces
or
would
would
you
have
the
same
interface
for
them?
I
think
you'd
probably
need
different
interfaces.
D
C
B
B
Okay,
just
it's
four,
so
it
doesn't
actually
enforce
it
to
be
a
valid
Unicode
character,
or
does
it
just
let
it
be
any
four
bytes?
No.
C
It
would
be
any
I
mean
you
could
you
could
have
if
this
opens
the
possibility
for
some
implementation
to
have
custom
emotes,
but
of
course
only
them
would
understand
them.
But
we.
B
Wanted
to
leave
that
door
open
that
makes
sense,
okay
and
then
really
small,
nitpick
I
think
721
uses
the
like
property
of
naming
convention,
so
it's
like
owner
of
whatever.
So
instead
of
get
remote
count,
you
might
want
to
do
a
moat
count
of
again
really
yeah.
B
Okay,
good
you're,
you're
rationale:
okay,
The
Impressions,
committed
yep
that
looks
good
backwards.
Compatibility,
yep
tests
look
good,
so
your
interface
name
here
doesn't
match
the
one
used
in
the
reference.
B
Okay,
so
you
should.
B
No,
this
is
fine.
I'm
I'm,
mostly
worried
about
packagelock.json
this
one's
this
one's
okay.
So
if
you
want
to
keep
it
go
for
it
all
right,
no,
that's
great!
Oh
once
it's
all
done,
I'll
take
another
look
at
it
and
it
should
be
good
to
merge
as
a
draft
awesome.
C
Before
before
you
go
on
it,
well,
it
should
be
there,
but
we
are
aware
that
there
are
a
few
proposals,
two
of
them
even
in
final,
but
they
are
really
not
minimalistic
because
they
include
events
in
what
we
explain
here.
Why?
We
consider
that
limiting
for
many
implementations,
all
right.
B
E
C
B
B
So
I
guess
one
thing
I'd
like
to
see
answered-
and
this
is
you
know
not
require
this
is
just
something
I'd
be
interested
in.
Seeing
is
why
have
the
is
soul
bound
a
method
at
all
like
why,
so
why
do
you
even
need
the
standard
if
all
you're
doing
is
making
the
transfer
functions
for
721
fail?
Like
can't
you
just
tell
if
it's
Soul
Bound
by
trying
to
transfer
it.
Thank.
B
B
Probably
the
only
comment
I'm
gonna
have
to
make
on
here,
yeah
I
mean
seems,
seems
fine
to
me
very
simple,
nice,
so
location.
B
So
you
don't
actually
say
in
here:
I
guess
you
say
it
in
the
comments
here
yeah
this
folks
will
try
to
do
the
transfer
of
the
talk
of
much
revert
execution,
yeah,
okay,
yeah,
okay,
it's
there!
So
yeah
this!
This
looks
good
I'll
approve
it
just
make
sure
you
fix
that
one
immotable
in
the
backwards
compatibility
sections.
A
Yeah
right,
so
there
are
first
two
proposals:
they
have
been
requested
by
different
authors,
but
unfortunately
they
are
not
in
the
call
but
yeah
we
can
go
through
them.
Okay,.
B
This
is
changing
the
Status
from
what
the
previous
one
was.
Let's
find
out,
it's
actually.
B
B
E
E
E
B
B
B
E
E
E
B
E
B
E
E
A
And
then
we'll
go
so
reviewer
allocation.
Is
it's
still
done
by
you
or
the
proposal
can
also
propose
a
reviewer.
Oh.
B
The
proposer
should
absolutely
propose
their
own
reviewers
I
just
picked
somebody
randomly
from
a
list,
I
have
in
a
in
a
hack
empty,
it
seems
seems
to
work,
I.
Think
I,
don't
know,
maybe
about
a
quarter
of
the
time.
The
volunteer
actually
replies
and
gives
some
useful
feedback.
So
I
I
think
that's
doing
pretty
well
so
far,.
B
B
E
E
B
D
B
A
A
B
A
A
Maybe
connecting
for
with
a
wallet.
B
E
A
It's
shouldn't:
it
provide
different
interface
for
connection,
like
maybe
metamask
wallet,
connect
and
yeah.
B
B
Oh
yeah,
that
happens
all
the
time
Jen
it's
it's
somewhat
annoying,
okay.
What
did
I
break
now?
Okay,
I!
Didn't
we're
just
waiting
on
six
three
four.
E
D
E
E
E
B
B
E
B
Oh
I
remember
this
one
from
a
while
ago.
This
is
like
an
optional
way
to
protect
people
from
with
withdrawing
yeah.
A
Yeah
we
recently
had
a
chat
with
the
author
and
I
suggested
that
this
proposal
seems
to
be
a
good
fit
for
review,
not
in
draft,
because
this
has
already
been
implemented
by
some
of
the
consensus
care,
client
and
some
are
waiting
that
they
would
be
implementing
after
the
upgrade,
because
it
talks
about
a
manual
list
created
on
GitHub.
So
yeah,
okay,.
D
B
A
B
B
B
E
B
E
B
A
Sam
about
the
last
one,
six,
three,
five
nine,
it
looks
like
the
changes
are
done
by
the
proposal
right
and
what
is
missing
here.
Do
we
need
approval
from
Pavel.
B
They're
adding
themselves
so
they
need
to
be
approved
by
one
of
the
old
authors.
First,
before
they'll
they'll
count.
B
A
But
explicit
yeah,
yeah
yeah,
so.
B
It
got
changed
so
it
needs
new
approval.
E
B
Yeah,
like
this
needs
to
be
done
in
a
separate
PR.
This
can't
be
emerged
until
that's
done
and.
E
B
E
E
B
B
D
E
E
E
B
Okay
yeah:
this
is
like
very
opaque
to
somebody
who's,
not
deep
into
meta
transactions,
because
I
I'm,
sure,
okay,.
D
E
E
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
B
B
Mean
I
can
do
it
too,
like
it's
not
exactly
a
big
p
like
a
big
change,
but
don't
have
to
approve
it
anyways,
so
yeah
I,
guess
ping
them
about
it
and
I
guess
shoot.
D
E
E
E
E
D
B
E
E
E
B
B
And
specification
is
above
rational.
What
is
going
on
here.