CAIP-2 (Chain ID): The Ethereum interface about caips HOT 9 CLOSED

My gut feeling is that we should use ethereum here. The only advantage I see for evm is that it is shorter. But then we should better take eth as it is about ethereum and not the virtual machine IMHO. But waiting for @pedrouid to ship in before stating my final signaling - just saying where I lean to currently

from caips.

This is actually important because some private Ethereum/EVM chains may have chainIds not compatible with EIP-155, something that was pointed out by the uPort team. Additionally this makes it easier to distinguish from networkId's which are still commonly used by Dapps.

from caips.

Personally I'm not that strong on the evm prefix so I would be happy to go with the ethereum one

from caips.

@pedrouid any 👍 or 👎 for dropping the "eip155-" prefix within the "ethereum" interface?

from caips.

@pedrouid great, thanks. Do you know a different type of network ID that belongs into the Ethereum interface and could be covered here as well?

from caips.

I would just assume that a private Ethereum chain using a chainId that is not compatible with EIP-155 is following the CAIP-2 but not the CAIP-3. Hence it has ethereum interface but has an arbitrary reference string

from caips.

Done in #9

from caips.

I'm not sure why this is closed as it is the discussions-to link for CAIP-3.

I don’t understand why Ethereum addresses are labeled as eip155. EIP-155 didn’t change the addressing scheme for Ethereum in any way, it only changed the signing scheme and it is opt-in for every transaction and not something that is set per account. An Ethereum address may sign one transaction without a chain ID and the next with a chain ID and then the next without again.

It is worth noting that these addresses will not be used for signing, they will be used for sending. If you have Ethereum assets, you can send it to any ethereum address regardless of whow the owner of that address signs assets. The inclusion of the chain ID lets the sender know which chain this address is known to be good for, so there is no need for further assertions about the chain ID beyond the intent of the address provider.

I think that ethereum should be the term used, or maybe ethereum1 if you want some form of versioning in the future.

from caips.

the prefix eip155 is used as we use chainIDs introduced in eip155 to specify the chains. Also ethereum: is already used by ERC681

from caips.