EIP: Draft
Title: Initial Registrar for the Ethereum Name Service
Author: J. Maurelian and Nick Johnson
Status: Draft
Type: Informational
Created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
- Should funds be donated to the Foundation instead of burned?
- maybe just the 0.1% bidding cost?
- Nameprep isn't enforced anywhere within the contracts, placing the onus on the client to properly implement it. This seems like a security/spoofing/phishing concern.
- Who will own the ENS rootnode?
- How can I be sure that person won't just
OK, so here's what it looks like happens when the value of the bid is higher than the amount submitted.
-
When you submit a new bid, a deed contract is created. The full amount of ether you submitted (let's say 3 ETH) is sent to that Deed.
-
When you then unseal your bid, revealing the value of your actual bid (let's say 3 ETH) one of two things can happen:
- The current highest bid for
foobarbaz.eth
is 4 ETH. You do not win. The registrar thus closes the deed, refunding 99.9% of the amount submitted.
- The current highest bid for
-
The current highest bid for
foobarbaz.eth
is 2 ETH. You are the highest bidder so far! In this case, the registrar will try to update the balance held by the deed, a
Cannot find a maintained implementation of name prep for the registrar package
I hereby claim:
- I am maurelian on github.
- I am maurelian (https://keybase.io/maurelian) on keybase.
- I have a public key ASBOCUDTU4hXdwiBl_h5gATEt6ww55bTIYHvdaRcSvYjqQo
To claim this, I am signing this object:
pragma solidity ^0.4.10; | |
// Update: Just use HardHat's: https://github.com/nomiclabs/hardhat/blob/master/packages/hardhat-core/console.sol | |
// Enables event logging of the format `console.log('descriptive string', variable)`, | |
// without having to worry about the variable type (as long as an event has been declared for that type in the | |
// Console contract. | |
contract Console { | |
event LogUint(string, uint); |
#! /bin/bash | |
# Simpler version of https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/zeppelin-solidity/master/scripts/test.sh | |
echo "Starting our own testrpc-sc node instance" | |
# we give each account 1M ether, needed for high-value tests | |
./node_modules/ethereumjs-testrpc-sc/bin/testrpc --gasLimit 0xfffffffffff --port 8555 \ | |
--account="0x2bdd21761a483f71054e14f5b827213567971c676928d9a1808cbfa4b7501200,1000000000000000000000000" \ | |
--account="0x2bdd21761a483f71054e14f5b827213567971c676928d9a1808cbfa4b7501201,1000000000000000000000000" \ | |
--account="0x2bdd21761a483f71054e14f5b827213567971c676928d9a1808cbfa4b7501202,1000000000000000000000000" \ |
This is an informal... you might even say adhoc review of the SimpleMultisig
contract, found here:
This review makes no legally binding guarantees whatsoever. Use at your own risk.
The two findings listed under Major
and Medium
should be fixed. The Minor
and Note
issues don't pose a security risk, but should be fixed to adhere to best practices.