Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Add EIP: Domain-contracts two-way binding #6807

Closed
wants to merge 11 commits into from
Closed

Add EIP: Domain-contracts two-way binding #6807

wants to merge 11 commits into from

Conversation

VenkatTeja
Copy link

@VenkatTeja VenkatTeja commented Mar 30, 2023 •
edited by github-actions bot

Draft PR. Looking for feedback on the scope of idea. Will provide detailed approach soon.

@VenkatTeja VenkatTeja changed the title Domain-contracts two-way binding Add EIP: Domain-contracts two-way binding Mar 30, 2023
@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented Mar 30, 2023 •
edited

File EIPS/eip-6807.md

Requires 1 more reviewers from @axic, @Pandapip1, @SamWilsn, @xinbenlv

@eth-bot eth-bot changed the title Add EIP: Domain-contracts two-way binding Domain-contracts two-way binding Mar 30, 2023
@eth-bot eth-bot added the e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus label Mar 30, 2023
@VenkatTeja
Copy link
Author

Hi @SamWilsn, can you review this please?

@Pandapip1
Copy link
Member

@eth-bot rerun

Pandapip1
Pandapip1 requested changes Apr 4, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@Pandapip1 Pandapip1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please create a new EIP file, instead of modifying the template.

@VenkatTeja
Copy link
Author

H I have no idea what this is I don't understand the language I've tired I do know that I have receipts and time stamps and work recording of ever and minute as well as all the transaction done in my wallet as well as the keystones to them also . So thanks I guess what ever this . I'll keep it in a safe also .

Hey, thanks for responding. This EIP has nothing to do with protecting your wallet or funds. Its a way to allow projects to link their official website and official contracts. The intention is to standardise this and prevent DNS and phishing attacks.

@Pandapip1
Copy link
Member

That was likely a spam bot.

@github-actions github-actions bot added c-new Creates a brand new proposal s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-erc labels Apr 11, 2023
@eth-bot eth-bot added the a-review Waiting on author to review label Apr 11, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot removed c-new Creates a brand new proposal t-erc s-draft This EIP is a Draft labels Apr 11, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added c-new Creates a brand new proposal s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-erc labels Apr 11, 2023
@VenkatTeja
Copy link
Author

Hey @Pandapip1,
I read through my readme again and I feel its informative enough to point the solution that uses two-way binding to verify official contracts using both on-chain and off-chain methods (like a 2FA) to ensure the state of official contracts is correct and in-sync.

Let me know if its still unclear and how I can improve. Thanks

@VenkatTeja
Copy link
Author

Hey @Pandapip1,
Can you please check this.

@VenkatTeja
Copy link
Author

Hi @YaroslavPysanskyi, were you able to contact a specialist?

@VenkatTeja
Copy link
Author

Hi @Pandapip1

@eth-bot eth-bot changed the title Domain-contracts two-way binding Add EIP: Domain-contracts two-way binding Sep 13, 2023
@eth-bot eth-bot added the e-review Waiting on editor to review label Sep 13, 2023
SamWilsn
SamWilsn reviewed Sep 13, 2023
View reviewed changes
EIPS/eip-6807.md
Comment on lines +104 to +108
<!--

## Reference Implementation

-->
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't allow external links. If you would like to include a reference implementation, please do so in the ../assets/eip-6807 folder with a CC0-1.0 license.

SamWilsn
SamWilsn previously approved these changes Sep 13, 2023
View reviewed changes
@eth-bot eth-bot enabled auto-merge (squash) September 13, 2023 22:12
eth-bot
eth-bot approved these changes Sep 13, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@eth-bot eth-bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...

eth-bot
eth-bot previously approved these changes Sep 13, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@eth-bot eth-bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...

@SamWilsn SamWilsn self-requested a review September 13, 2023 22:13
@SamWilsn SamWilsn dismissed their stale review September 13, 2023 22:16

Changed mind.

SamWilsn
SamWilsn requested changes Sep 13, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@SamWilsn SamWilsn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, after reading @Pandapip1's review, I agree with him.

I think you need to make it more clear how the smart contract side defends against DNS changes. For example, if the wallet visits the site for the first time, and the attacker has already poisoned the contracts.json file, how will the wallet know where the registry is?

If you had a single registry that all domains use, that requires a signed transaction/message to change, and maybe some DNSSEC validation... you could maybe put something together there, but it would still be pretty difficult.

@github-actions
Copy link

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

@github-actions github-actions bot added w-stale Waiting on activity and removed w-stale Waiting on activity labels Sep 29, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

@github-actions github-actions bot added w-stale Waiting on activity and removed w-stale Waiting on activity labels Oct 14, 2023
@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor

I am closing this pull request because we are in the process of separating EIPs and ERCs into distinct repositories. Unfortunately, as far as we are aware, GitHub does not provide any tools to ease this migration, so every pull request will need to be re-opened manually.

As this is a PR to create / modify an ERC, I will kindly ask you to redirect this to the new repository at ethereum/ERCs. We have prepared a guide to help with the process.

If there is relevant history here, please link to this PR from the new pull request.

On behalf of the EIP Editors, I apologize for this inconvenience.

@SamWilsn SamWilsn closed this Oct 25, 2023
auto-merge was automatically disabled October 25, 2023 22:06

Pull request was closed

@VenkatTeja
Copy link
Author

Actually, after reading @Pandapip1's review, I agree with him.

I think you need to make it more clear how the smart contract side defends against DNS changes. For example, if the wallet visits the site for the first time, and the attacker has already poisoned the contracts.json file, how will the wallet know where the registry is?

If you had a single registry that all domains use, that requires a signed transaction/message to change, and maybe some DNSSEC validation... you could maybe put something together there, but it would still be pretty difficult.

Hi @SamWilsn, Wallets would use on-chain registry to validate if it matches with the one on contracts.json. Its a dual check standard. Is there a call I can present this? Like a community call? I have written decent amount of explanations in comments here but I don't understand how its still unclear.

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor

Replying on the discussion thread.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@lightclient lightclient lightclient left review comments

@SamWilsn SamWilsn SamWilsn requested changes

@alexanderramos89 alexanderramos89 alexanderramos89 left review comments

@eth-bot eth-bot eth-bot left review comments

@Pandapip1 Pandapip1 Awaiting requested review from Pandapip1

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
a-review Waiting on author to review c-new Creates a brand new proposal e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus e-review Waiting on editor to review s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-erc
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
7 participants
@VenkatTeja @eth-bot @Pandapip1 @YaroslavPysanskyi @SamWilsn @lightclient @alexanderramos89