Create eip-1538

[mudgen]

This pull request adds eip-1538.

Information about ERC1538 is here: #1538

[fulldecent]

_functionSignatures may be better as a bytes4[]. Currently it is string which does not seem semantic.

[fulldecent]

Ownership is orthogonal to the goals of this project so I believe it is unnecessary for the specification to include this.

Also, there might be a vulnerability about storage.

I don't think ERC-930 is ready for prime time. More discussion there.

[mudgen]

_functionSignatures may be better as a bytes4[]. Currently it is string which does not seem semantic.

Yes, using bytes4[] is semantically better but then functions in the ERC1538Query interface, as given in the standard, will not work. Because they require the function signatures.

Also, using strings of function signatures enables implementors to prevent selector clashing, where one signature hashes to the same 4 bytes as another.

[mudgen]

Ownership is orthogonal to the goals of this project so I believe it is unnecessary for the specification to include this.

I agree with you which is why Ownership is not part of the standard. The standard says the following: "Typically some kind of authentication is needed for adding/replacing/removing functions from a transparent contract, however the scheme for authentication or ownership is not part of this standard." Also checkout the section of the standard called "Decentralized Authority".

Your comment:

Also, there might be a vulnerability about storage.

If you know of a vulnerability then please give the details.

I don't think ERC-930 is ready for prime time. More discussion there.

Do you mean ERC1538?

[bitcoinwarrior1]

Hi @mudgen would be good if in future the commit messages were more clear in their intent

[mudgen]

@James-Sangalli I understand, I will work on improving my commit messages.

[mudgen]

@fulldecent I appreciate your help and input about ERC1538. If there are ways to make it better then let's make it better. Because of your input and other's input the standard is getting better. I recently added several new sections to the standard that you may be interested in.

Here are titles of the new sections:
Security
Transparency
Versions of Functions
Best Practices, Tools and More Information
String of Function Signatures Instead of bytes4[] Array of Function Selectors

[fulldecent]

I do not see this new version in EIPs. Specifically I do not see "# String of Function"

[mudgen]

@fulldecent sorry, it wasn't updated in the EIP. I just updated it, so the new things are there now.

[axic]

Misses a colon.

[axic]

This date format isn't following the required one, yyyy-mm-dd.

[axic]

@mudgen any chance this PR could be rebased? It seems like it imports a lot of unnecessary commits.